Reform UK discussion

[DerekC]

The Independent has an article today on Reform's declared anti-migrant policy which makes pretty clear what is being planned by the ultras. The problem is, I think, the "we'll give 'em a try" brigade who don't know what they are voting for and many of whom will be horrified when it starts to happen.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/zia-yusuf-reform-nigel-farage-ice-home-secretary-b2925765.html

And here's the full text (the link may be behind a paywall)

Reform’s plan for a ‘British ICE’ combines cruelty with stupidity

If you think Britain is broken now, then consider what this great old country might look like in a few years’ time under a Reform UK government led by Nigel Farage, with Zia Yusuf as home secretary.

With the party ahead in the polls, albeit drooping a little lately, such a prospect is no longer fanciful. We should, perhaps, be grateful to Yusuf, a preternaturally bloodless figure, for being so open about the horror show he has in mind.

The divisions we experienced during Brexit, and even in the anti-immigration riots of 2024, would pale beside what is proposed. Yusuf, who has never been an MP, nonetheless had “shadow home secretary” inscribed on his lectern and invited us to imagine him as the real thing: secretary of state for the home department, in charge of prisons, migration and, God help us, policing.

At a hotel in Dover, and in his first speech as the party’s home affairs spokesperson, to give him his proper title, Yusuf – the “shadow-shadow home secretary” – called for a “vast expansion” of stop-and-search powers, including “saturation policing” in high-crime areas. It is hard not to picture him relishing such authority, the head of a kind of British secret police, delighting in the power at his disposal. It is a sinister, chilling prospect. All he needs is a boost and a fancy uniform.

Rarely has a British political party unveiled a programme that combines cruelty with impracticality on such an extravagant scale. Its potency lies partly in its grotesquery: it is so badly thought-through that one scarcely knows where to begin.

“British ICE” is as good a starting point as any. Like the failed “British Doge” that Reform claimed would save unspecified billions in local government, it is a Trumpian import – and one that has not proved much use even in the United States. If Yusuf is serious about deporting hundreds of thousands of people who have settled here, started families and built businesses, then the reality would be brutal. People would have to be torn from their homes, seized in the streets, perhaps even have their children used as leverage. God knows what else would be done to hit the targets.

Far from avoiding ID cards – apparently Farage’s preference – Britain would drift towards becoming a police state. The proposed “deportation agency” would supposedly detain 24,000 migrants at any one time, and deport up to 288,000 a year, with five deportation flights leaving daily for destinations across the globe. The logistics alone strain belief.

And if such a force truly attempted this, it would require extensive coercion. Resistance would be inevitable. Officers might be armed, as in the US, with all the dangers that entails. Even if not, the civil unrest would be unprecedented in modern mainland Britain, as officials – they could not do the job otherwise – dragged families from their homes and dispatched them to something resembling a detention camp.

Do we really want to watch neighbours screaming as they are loaded into vans? Do we want armed agents “accidentally” shooting protesters who stand in their way? Or criminalising those who offer shelter? And what would conditions be like for 24,000 detainees – roughly the capacity of a medium-sized football stadium?

Under such a regime, legal redress would evaporate. The Human Rights Act would be repealed. Britain would leave the European Convention on Human Rights. Yusuf promises to “take back control” of the civil service, police and courts from “wokery” and “lefty lawyers”. Habeas corpus, at least for so-called “illegals”, would wither. It would be a hellscape.

There are practical absurdities, too. What if certain countries refused to accept deportees? Would threats to withdraw visas or foreign aid – itself supposedly on the chopping block – suffice? If there were no Rwanda-style scheme, where would people go? Who would do the jobs they currently perform? Who would run their businesses? Would they be compensated for homes and assets left behind? Taxpayers would foot the bill for an exercise as chaotic as it is punitive.

And why stop at “illegal” migrants? If citizenship is restricted to those with approved “ancestral” links, then rights become conditional. Lose citizenship and you may lose your vote, universal credit, even your state pension – despite a lifetime of work. As Matt Goodwin has argued, it takes more than a piece of paper to be British. One wonders what criteria would ultimately apply. Race, perhaps? And if not under Farage and Yusuf, then under those who follow them.

Shouting “racist” or “Nazi” is not enough. Some supporters embrace those labels. Online, amid anonymity and foreign bot activity, they call themselves “national conservatives”, “patriots”, “ethno-nationalists”. They prefer bureaucratic euphemisms such as “re-migration” to the bluntness of “send ’em home”. Some are openly Islamophobic; some antisemitic.

But millions of voters cannot simply be dismissed. The real-world consequences of Reform’s policies must be confronted and debated. At local level, the party has struggled to translate rhetoric into workable governance. At national level, the risks would multiply.

Mass re-migration would devour public funds. Reopening Brexit negotiations to wage a fresh trade war with Europe would compound the damage. Older and poorer voters should ask who will pay the private insurance fees required for NHS access under Reform’s model, and what stripped-back, second-class provision would replace the universal system. Those with pre-existing conditions might wait longer and fare worse. And without migrant labour, hospitals and care homes would face acute shortages.

Project forward to 2036 under a majority Reform government and the picture darkens further. Britain would be smaller, older and whiter; more isolated from Europe; paradoxically, more vulnerable to foreign interference and less able to fund its own defence. The welfare state would shrink to a skeleton. Charity would fill the gaps.

Flags would proliferate; rights would not. The police and courts would be politicised. The BBC could disappear. The NHS would survive only as a minimal safety net. Protections against discrimination would erode – you might indeed be sacked for being disabled. Migrants and even their British-born children could find their rights curtailed unless they were deemed to “contribute” sufficiently. Meanwhile, the wealthiest would enjoy a generous, low-tax regime.

Reform presents this as a return to a golden age. In truth, it would be a journey to a foreign country – one with painted trains and union jacks on every lamp post, but also polluted skies, secret policing and once-commonplace diseases such as measles, TB and rickets.

If that is the Britain you want, then vote accordingly. But history offers a warning. Fascism has never delivered prosperity or freedom. It has only ever narrowed both.

 

[H F Stephens]

Watched this thread with interest. I have a question to ask.

Caveat for context - I live in the “St Albans bubble” (see also “Cambridge“, “Guildford”, “Bath” etc)

But… I know a number of people from all types of backgrounds, upbringings, colours and creeds, from all over the country. Amongst my closer friends and family I have people ranging from ages of 20s to 80s, from long term unemployed to Chief Execs / Exec level of companies that are (or would be if they were listed) in the FTSE250, people on benefits to people with millions in the bank.

Most of them are unhappy with the current Government, and the last couple before that too. Amongst them are people who openly (and in some cases, proudly) state they support Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, and one of them (until recently!) was very pro SNP. A few of them actively campaign for their preferred party, and two are councillors.

But not one of my friends has said they support Reform.


My question therefore is: Assuming there are the number of reform supporters in the country that the polls suggest there are, why do they seem to be reluctant to say so in public? Are they embarrassed? Do they know deep down it is ‘wrong’ but like what they hear?

Or, is that I have a self selecting group of friends that appear to be reasonably sensible?

I'd posit that, far from unusually, your social and professional bubble is very discrete.

It may only be a few streets away, or it may be just the other side of town (or tracks) but there's little reticence in many locations about vocally expressing support for what 'we' may consider to be extreme positions.

Populism is often wrapped up in flavours of tribalism, so within those bubbles there's clear, comfortable and confident expression of (eg Reform) allegiance, and that's before we get anywhere near those locations which remain visibly flag-festooned.

Now, there's a contention that some of the reasons that those areas are particularly open to the kinds of populist messaging that's apparently very penetrative, is that those populations feel invisible/ignored/disfavoured/sidelined by those they perceive to be 'in charge'.

When you are continuously (and we're probably talking for at least forty years in many areas, so almost two generations) told (choose any from the the following) that infrastructure investment is better made elsewhere; that your healthcare provision, outcomes and life-expectancy should not be expected to be to the same standard as elsewhere, that your council tax should be higher than that applicable in much more affluent areas, that nothing can be done about your desolate local high street/shopping parade because it's owned by an absent billionaire* etc., etc., it's perhaps not completely surprising that there's a level of pervasive despair.

Personally, I am very concerned that a wide range of politicians, ministries, councils, institutions and charities still don't really 'get' this from within their own bubbles, and we're sleep-walking into entirely predictable reactions as a result.

There's also a reasonably visible strata of what might be described as 'white van man' economically-active and self-generative of income who seem to be very much aligned with the Reform-type rhetoric.

They absolutely buy-in to the position that 'the Government' can't be trusted with their money; that they are 'over-taxed,' that their taxes are going straight to those that they perceive to be 'underserving' (for whatever kaleidoscope of 'reasons') and that therefore it's entirely right and proper that they do cash-jobs and cheer on the 'cash-preferred' businesses who they believe are also championing their 'freedoms'.

Indeed, it seems that many of these folks are so convinced of this that their social media accounts are used to display the 'homers' and 'after hours' jobs that they're clearly proud of, and effectively advertise for more.

The position is therefore apparently acceptable, ingrained and completely supportable within their bubbles.

See also: some members of the farming community.

They seem to feel a strong association with the espoused positions of the likes of Nigel Farage in politics, and Jeremy Clarkson in popular culture, as examples.

And, when they're in 'gym-mode,' it's difficult not to see obvious alignment with the Andrew Tate types of character.

Bubbles are very worrying.

*Article from The Guardian on the subject: https://www.theguardian.com/society...on-aycliffe-county-durham-high-street-decline

It's not possible to quote the article fully as it's an interactive one, but representative excerpts are as follows:

Six miles north of Darlington, this industrial wasteland was chosen by William Beveridge for his pioneering new town in the late 1940s. Beveridge, the architect of the welfare state, personally oversaw its creation on the site of a former explosives shed used for experiments in the war.

It would, he said, be a town of “hopes and dreams” and a “paradise for housewives”, which would be centred on a high street he named Beveridge Way.

Nearly 80 years later, this single shopping precinct helps tell a different story.

Of the 45 shops on Beveridge Way today, 23 are empty – a vacancy rate nearly four times the national average. Those that are left include a Ladbrokes, Greggs, four charity shops, four discount stores and a pawnbroker.

The banks are long gone – the closest now a 90-minute round trip to Darlington by bus – and the faded signs record an exodus of household names: Wilko, Select, Peacocks.

But one peculiar aspect is that its town centre is wholly owned by a London-based multibillionaire who is wealthier than Richard Branson.


Benzion Freshwater, 77, may be the biggest property tycoon most Britons have never heard of.

The London-based multibillionaire heads one of the UK’s richest families, worth £2.6bn, according to the latest Sunday Times rich list. His empire includes prime property in New York, Florida and London, including the capital’s Grade II-listed Africa House.

Since 1990, his company, Daejan Holdings, has also owned the entirety of Newton Aycliffe town centre.

 

[Harpo]

The rise of Reform reminds me of Brexit, where overly casual opposition led to an outcome that was not expected by remainers and caused the PM, Cameron, to fall on his sword.

 

[Killingworth]

The rise of Reform reminds me of Brexit, where overly casual opposition led to an outcome that was not expected by remainers and caused the PM, Cameron, to fall on his sword.

With the same populist cheerleader who lives for chaos, but he won't be there for ever.

Braverman is capable of rousing speeches and Jenrick sounds very plausible to many. Members of this forum are mostly not their natural supporters but they'll find ways to denigrate other candidates and policies to pick up more seats and could well become the official opposition.

 

[JamesT]

An update to the discussion from a few weeks ago.

Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin will not face sanctions over byelection leaflet error

High court judge accepts material distributed without legally required imprint due to inadvertent printing mistake

www.theguardian.com

Matt Goodwin, Reform UK’s candidate in the Gorton and Denton byelection, will not face a sanction for leaflets that omitted the party’s imprint, after a high court judge accepted this was due to an inadvertent printing error.

Not really surprising, given the printers had previously admitted they’d messed up.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd posit that, far from unusually, your social and professional bubble is very discrete.

It may only be a few streets away, or it may be just the other side of town (or tracks) but there's little reticence in many locations about vocally expressing support for what 'we' may consider to be extreme positions.

Populism is often wrapped up in flavours of tribalism, so within those bubbles there's clear, comfortable and confident expression of (eg Reform) allegiance, and that's before we get anywhere near those locations which remain visibly flag-festooned.

Now, there's a contention that some of the reasons that those areas are particularly open to the kinds of populist messaging that's apparently very penetrative, is that those populations feel invisible/ignored/disfavoured/sidelined by those they perceive to be 'in charge'.

When you are continuously (and we're probably talking for at least forty years in many areas, so almost two generations) told (choose any from the the following) that infrastructure investment is better made elsewhere; that your healthcare provision, outcomes and life-expectancy should not be expected to be to the same standard as elsewhere, that your council tax should be higher than that applicable in much more affluent areas, that nothing can be done about your desolate local high street/shopping parade because it's owned by an absent billionaire* etc., etc., it's perhaps not completely surprising that there's a level of pervasive despair.

Personally, I am very concerned that a wide range of politicians, ministries, councils, institutions and charities still don't really 'get' this from within their own bubbles, and we're sleep-walking into entirely predictable reactions as a result.

There's also a reasonably visible strata of what might be described as 'white van man' economically-active and self-generative of income who seem to be very much aligned with the Reform-type rhetoric.

They absolutely buy-in to the position that 'the Government' can't be trusted with their money; that they are 'over-taxed,' that their taxes are going straight to those that they perceive to be 'underserving' (for whatever kaleidoscope of 'reasons') and that therefore it's entirely right and proper that they do cash-jobs and cheer on the 'cash-preferred' businesses who they believe are also championing their 'freedoms'.

Indeed, it seems that many of these folks are so convinced of this that their social media accounts are used to display the 'homers' and 'after hours' jobs that they're clearly proud of, and effectively advertise for more.

The position is therefore apparently acceptable, ingrained and completely supportable within their bubbles.

See also: some members of the farming community.

They seem to feel a strong association with the espoused positions of the likes of Nigel Farage in politics, and Jeremy Clarkson in popular culture, as examples.

And, when they're in 'gym-mode,' it's difficult not to see obvious alignment with the Andrew Tate types of character.

Bubbles are very worrying.

*Article from The Guardian on the subject: https://www.theguardian.com/society...on-aycliffe-county-durham-high-street-decline

It's not possible to quote the article fully as it's an interactive one, but representative excerpts are as follows:

All fair comment.

With a slight caveat that I know plenth of people who fall into the categories you mention above, eg ‘White Van men’ (and women!), people who live in distinctly underprivileged bubbles, and people who outwardly and proudly supported Brexit. But none of them seem to openly support Reform. That’s not to say that the don’t support reform, but just that they are not saying so, at least not to me, other friends, nor on their social media that I see.

 

[sor]

"we're not part of the uniparty" latest:

Former Reform UK leader jumps ship for second time to ANOTHER group

The Conservative councillor he ousted has put the boot in, saying it's a 'kick in the teeth' for voters. 'I could not trust a man who literally changes with the wind direction.'

www.cornwalllive.com

The former leader of the Reform UK group at Cornwall Council, who resigned from the party to become deputy leader of the Cornish Independent Non-aligned Group (CING) has jumped ship again - to become a Tory.


In a bizarre turn of events, it will mean that Cllr Rob Parsonage will be Conservative councillor for Torpoint after ousting the division's previous incumbent, John Tivnan ... who was the town's Conservative councillor.

I suppose the Tories should be happy that they've gained from reform...?

 

[JGurney]

... some of the reasons that those areas are particularly open to the kinds of populist messaging that's apparently very penetrative, is that those populations feel invisible/ignored/disfavoured/sidelined by those they perceive to be 'in charge'.

When you are continuously ..... told ..... that infrastructure investment is better made elsewhere; ..... that nothing can be done about your desolate local high street/shopping parade ..... it's perhaps not completely surprising that there's a level of pervasive despair.

Personally, I am very concerned that a wide range of politicians, ministries, councils, institutions and charities still don't really 'get' this

To what extent do they really not 'get' that, and to what extent is their problem that they are more honest and realistic than Reform UK and it's variants, and don't offer unworkable solutions?

What do you think could and should be done about lower priorities for investment, and vacant shops?

Both affect my own local area. The local high street (in my case the Market Place) has suffered losses. Both banks have closed. Two of three pubs have closed. The former Post Office is now a hairdresser. The butcher has closed and so has the hardware shop. However I don't suppose this is because some mysterious person-in-charge ignored or disliked the town. The bank and Post Office branches went because much of what they did has gone online. The butcher and hardware shop could not compete with people driving off to 'retail parks'. The pubs suffered from several of the usual factors: cheaper off-licenses, rising car ownership, people drinking less, diverse and incompatible customer tastes, etc.

I don't like the outcome of closed-up buildings along the Market Place any more than many others locally, but I am at a loss for how to resolve it now it has gone this far. I can't see Reform et.al. doing anything remotely useful about it.

Concerning investment, I would love to see the railway re-opened to passengers rather than carry a couple of very slow freight trains each day, but realistically I can see that there are other much more productive uses for the same capital elsewhere around the region, which would benefit more people and generate more return on the investment. Again, I can't see Reform offering any new ideas which could make that sort of local investment a higher priority.

One issue is that it seems to me that anything which did successfully lead to a bustling Market Place and better local infrastructure would inevitably lead to rising rents and house prices locally, which would displease many of those who complain loudest about the current situation.

*Article from The Guardian on the subject: https://www.theguardian.com/society...on-aycliffe-county-durham-high-street-decline

Similar situation: as the article shows the decline of Newton Aycliffe as a shopping centre is down to:

• online shopping
• home entertainment
• rising car ownership
• out-of-town supermarkets
• online services (e.g. banking)
• being unable to compete with long-established Darlington, only six miles away, for custom from the rural hinterland rather than within the town, and having no particular tourist appeal.

While the Guardian makes much of the landowner being wealthy and based in London, it does not show that this has actually caused or worsened the decline of the high street. Similar towns where the shops have a number of small local landlords have much the same issues.

Did many of the local Reform activists tend to stick to walking to the High Street or did they keenly embrace getting a car and driving to the big supermarket? Have they kept out of cyberspace or are they frequent social media users?

 

[Tetchytyke]

*Article from The Guardian on the subject: https://www.theguardian.com/society...on-aycliffe-county-durham-high-street-decline

Similar situation: as the article shows the decline of Newton Aycliffe as a shopping centre is down to:

• online shopping
• home entertainment
• rising car ownership
• out-of-town supermarkets
• online services (e.g. banking)
• being unable to compete with long-established Darlington, only six miles away, for custom from the rural hinterland rather than within the town, and having no particular tourist appeal.

While the Guardian makes much of the landowner being wealthy and based in London, it does not show that this has actually caused or worsened the decline of the high street. Similar towns where the shops have a number of small local landlords have much the same issues.

The shopping streets in most of these towns are not owned by small local landlords, though, they are owned by big landlords.

Newton Aycliffe is an interesting example. The Guardian article refers to the Tesco superstore opening and it is telling that the town centre footfall dropped off a cliff the second the store opened. The same thing has happened in Bishop Auckland, where a huge out-of-town retail park was built at Tindale Crescent. A new bus station won't change anything; well, not unless it is built at Tindale Crescent it won't.

The ownership is important but, as you say, The Guardian don't explore it. What seems to be happening here, as is so often the way, is that the landowner is deliberately letting their property become dilapidated and run down. There will come a point in the imminent future where one of three things will happen:

1. The Council, or another regional development fund, will pump huge sums of regeneration money into the property, and the landowners will be the ones who benefit from it; or
2. The Council, or another regional development fund, will buy the property at above market rates (as happened in Bishop Auckland, where the Council spent almost £4m buying the largely empty Newgate Centre); or
3. The Council will give up and allow the land to be demolished for housing.

The latter happened in Durham when the retail park at Belmont sucked the shops away from the city centre. The shopping mall they deserted, Millburngate, was allowed to be demolished. It was replaced with a small shopping mall but, crucially, hundreds of student flats. Clearly student flats were the most profitable option in a University city but any sort of housing will do.

Reform don't have the answers to any of this.

 

[RT4038]

The shopping streets in most of these towns are not owned by small local landlords, though, they are owned by big landlords.

It doesn't really matter whether the shopping streets are owned by small local landlords, or big landlords. The effect will be much the same. The shopping streets in old towns will have been owned by small local landlords, who will have made big bucks by selling to the big landlords (and probably using the money to move out into fancy houses in the surrounding villages, or the chic small towns such as Barnard Castle, where the wealth is.)

Newton Aycliffe is an interesting example. The Guardian article refers to the Tesco superstore opening and it is telling that the town centre footfall dropped off a cliff the second the store opened. The same thing has happened in Bishop Auckland, where a huge out-of-town retail park was built at Tindale Crescent. A new bus station won't change anything; well, not unless it is built at Tindale Crescent it won't.

The people are voting with their feet and purses - they want the superstores and the cheap, little choice Aldis and Lidls. Small local landlords won't deliver those kind of shops, with their large free car parking. (Well actually the people will tell you they really want the small local shops, with lots of car parking, selling goods at the superstore prices - which is just not going to happen. And then they'll order on line or buy at the retail park anyway).

The ownership is important but, as you say, The Guardian don't explore it. What seems to be happening here, as is so often the way, is that the landowner is deliberately letting their property become dilapidated and run down. There will come a point in the imminent future where one of three things will happen:

1. The Council, or another regional development fund, will pump huge sums of regeneration money into the property, and the landowners will be the ones who benefit from it; or
2. The Council, or another regional development fund, will buy the property at above market rates (as happened in Bishop Auckland, where the Council spent almost £4m buying the largely empty Newgate Centre); or
3. The Council will give up and allow the land to be demolished for housing.

The latter happened in Durham when the retail park at Belmont sucked the shops away from the city centre. The shopping mall they deserted, Millburngate, was allowed to be demolished. It was replaced with a small shopping mall but, crucially, hundreds of student flats. Clearly student flats were the most profitable option in a University city but any sort of housing will do.

With there being no economic future in town centre shopping, it is small wonder that the landlords want to monetise their asset of declining value - if conversion (whether by alteration or rebuilding) into much needed homes is the best way then do it. Whatever, the big landlords are going to want the best possible deal.

Reform don't have the answers to any of this.

Reform only need the answer that says accelerate this process and embrace what is happening. We are going American. Small shops will be the niche of a few well heeled small towns (or a small part of a big town- 'the quaint retail quarter', almost as a tourist attraction. Which is what the people are really wanting by their actions.

 

[Cloud Strife]

One interesting thing about the town centre high street debate: I was in Luton recently, and the very 1970s shopping centre/market at the heart of the city was absolutely crowded at all hours. The shops inside were thriving, it was a clear destination for people, and what was remarkable was that there was a genuine mix of people.

Perhaps paradoxically, the often-criticised "town centre shopping mall" is actually a viable model for the future? Of course, I'm not advocating the level of urban destruction that Arndale brought to Luton, but perhaps there's a very real point in that a covered and warm town centre shopping area is actually desirable.

 

[Harpo]

Second place in Gorton and Denton. Time for Nige to steal a few more Tory MPs instead?

 

[Bayum]

Reform blaming Muslims already

 

[SuspectUsual]

Horrible concession speech rabbiting on about “sectarian voting”

 

[styles]

Reform blaming Muslims already

Worth noting that Polanski has said he would back a probe into this issue at the by-election, and the Labour Party chair Anna Turnley (spelling?) also has expressed concern about the issue.

 

[brad465]

Worth noting that Polanski has said he would back a probe into this issue at the by-election, and the Labour Party chair Anna Turnley (spelling?) also has expressed concern about the issue.

Can you clarify "this issue" please, is the "family voting" one or "blaming Muslims" or something else?

 

[styles]

Can you clarify "this issue" please, is the "family voting" one or "blaming Muslims" or something else?

They're the same thing dressed up in different terms depending on what slant the party in question wants to put on it.

The suggestion is that in some Muslim families all the votes are cast or are dictated by one person in the household. That person either tells them how to vote, or in the case of postal votes may even complete the ballot (except signature) themselves. I work on polling stations and you do see people asking other people how to vote and you have to intervene. I've also spent years knocking on doors and experienced people asking someone else in their household, "Who did we vote for?".

Whether it is a worse problem for Muslim households than non-Muslim households would require some proper investigation to say for sure.

Edit to clarify: The group who made the report for this election, Democracy Volunteers, don't appear to have mentioned Muslims specifically. Though arguably they also don't know who is Muslim just from their appearance, even if they could make a likely guess in many cases.

 

[Snow1964]

Worth noting that Polanski has said he would back a probe into this issue at the by-election, and the Labour Party chair Anna Turnley (spelling?) also has expressed concern about the issue.

It is Anna Turley
Labour dropping 25% vote share (roughly half as has 50.4% vote share in same constituency 21 months ago) must be a nightmare scenario

 

[Killingworth]

It is Anna Turley
Labour dropping 25% vote share (roughly half as has 50.4% vote share in same constituency 21 months ago) must be a nightmare scenario

It's quite a nightmare for Tories and LibDems too - the thought of any election is a nightmare prospect for effective governance.

 

[AlterEgo]

Whether it is a worse problem for Muslim households than non-Muslim households would require some proper investigation to say for sure.

Only to tell us what is already known. I think people should be a little less polite about it. It's a known problem, it is illegal, and it is just patriarchy we would not accept if it was a white British daddy instructing his wife and adult children how to vote.

All the political parties know this.

 

[bleeder4]

They're the same thing dressed up in different terms depending on what slant the party in question wants to put on it.

The suggestion is that in some Muslim families all the votes are cast or are dictated by one person in the household. That person either tells them how to vote, or in the case of postal votes may even complete the ballot (except signature) themselves. I work on polling stations and you do see people asking other people how to vote and you have to intervene. I've also spent years knocking on doors and experienced people asking someone else in their household, "Who did we vote for?".

Whether it is a worse problem for Muslim households than non-Muslim households would require some proper investigation to say for sure.

Edit to clarify: The group who made the report for this election, Democracy Volunteers, don't appear to have mentioned Muslims specifically. Though arguably they also don't know who is Muslim just from their appearance, even if they could make a likely guess in many cases.

I think that sort of thing happens across all demographics. In the days running up to a general election, I often hear comments in the office from colleagues along the lines of "I vote for whoever the wife tells me too", "My Dad would disown me if I voted for anyone other than Labour", "My other half handles all that" etc.

 

[styles]

Only to tell us what is already known. I think people should be a little less polite about it. It's a known problem, it is illegal, and it is just patriarchy we would not accept if it was a white British daddy instructing his wife and adult children how to vote.

All the political parties know this.

I used to canvass with a political party and my anecdotal experience is that it was almost all a particular demographic.

That being said, I now live somewhere far less diverse, and I don't campaign with political parties but work at polling stations. I see people peeking around into the next booth to ask who to vote for (at which point we intervene), and it is not the Muslim population because we barely have any.

The extent to which it is unlawful is however tricky. At polling stations it is pretty clear-cut that no campaigning is allowed, the ballot must be made in secret, etc. If you knock on somebody's door and they ask somebody else how they intend to vote though, is that an offence? I'm not aware that it is. Watching over somebody doing a postal vote, or doing their postal vote for them, absolutely an offence, but who's got evidence of that?

 

[AlterEgo]

The extent to which it is unlawful is however tricky. At polling stations it is pretty clear-cut that no campaigning is allowed, the ballot must be made in secret, etc. If you knock on somebody's door and they ask somebody else how they intend to vote though, is that an offence? I'm not aware that it is. Watching over somebody doing a postal vote, or doing their postal vote for them, absolutely an offence, but who's got evidence of that?

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".

 

[Cloud Strife]

The suggestion is that in some Muslim families all the votes are cast or are dictated by one person in the household.

I've experienced this during the last Polish parliamentary elections. Some guy came in and instructed his wife and daughter how to vote for the far right goons. We intervened immediately: they were asked to leave the room, then they were invited in individually to cast their vote. He was absolutely livid, saying that he had the right to tell them how to vote, blahblahblah. He shut up when he was informed that if he continued, then the police would be called and a report made about him interfering with the integrity of the elections. Amusingly, I caught sight of who his wife and daughter voted for, and it certainly wasn't for his preferred party.

Labour dropping 25% vote share (roughly half as has 50.4% vote share in same constituency 21 months ago) must be a nightmare scenario

I just wonder if it's not partially because of the specifics of this by election. It was very much fought on personality, and Matt Goodwin simply didn't work there. The other parties did an absolutely wonderful job of portraying him as an out of touch candidate who knew nothing about the area, and images such as him standing next to a flash car did absolutely nothing for his chances.

 

[styles]

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".

Yes having spent years working in elections, doing everything from postal vote counting to running polling stations, I'm inclined to agree on the postal votes front.

The current system is basically anybody can apply for a postal vote. I have had one for many years but I have a legitimate reason, which is that if I'm working all day on a polling station, I don't have the chance to vote without a postal vote. But the numbers keep increasing and while I appreciate we all have busy lives, polling stations are open 7am-10pm and very few people would not have the time to vote. Disabilities, being abroad for work on election day etc all make sense, but it should in my view require a justification. If somebody registers for a postal vote for say 3 elections on the trot with the reason that they have a hospital appointment it should be queried. If a whole household registers for postal votes, for anything other than a holiday in one election, that should raise alarm bells.

I'm all for increasing accessibility in elections (and we have everything you can imagine in place at polling stations from coloured overlays for people with visual stress, to strict procedures if a voter needs a member of staff to help them vote). But this shouldn't come from a blanket policy allowing anybody to effectively bypass the normal safeguards in place.

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

I've experienced this during the last Polish parliamentary elections. Some guy came in and instructed his wife and daughter how to vote for the far right goons. We intervened immediately: they were asked to leave the room, then they were invited in individually to cast their vote. He was absolutely livid, saying that he had the right to tell them how to vote, blahblahblah. He shut up when he was informed that if he continued, then the police would be called and a report made about him interfering with the integrity of the elections. Amusingly, I caught sight of who his wife and daughter voted for, and it certainly wasn't for his preferred party.

I had somebody come in at the last election and ask how to vote for Nigel Farage.

Bit of an issue - our polling station wasn't in Clacton, so they couldn't vote for Farage.

Now the expected thing would be to look for the Reform UK candidate, but we can't be seen to give any preference, so all I can really do is read out the candidates and parties in the order they appear on the ballot paper. There was a Reform UK candidate, and I did read their name and party out along with the rest.

Anyway, he tried to take his ballot paper away in protest (against who, I don't know), but was informed that he was not allowed to take the ballot paper away from the polling place. I did clarify that he could spoil his paper if he didn't want to vote for any of the candidates and that the spoiling would be counted and noted.

Cue his wife being next in the queue, and he told her to rip up the ballot paper in protest. It got a bit tricky because I'm trying to inform him he's not allowed to discuss how to vote inside the polling station. But she clearly had nobody in mind to vote for so it was somewhat in vain. She proceeded to rip up the ballot paper then asks what to do with it. I suggested it could still be deposited into the ballot box and it would be counted as a spoilt ballot. The man then takes issue with this and says no you should take it away or eat it (!). I got the impression he was anti-authority or had no confidence in the election process. Logged in the diary, returning officer informed, didn't see them again, not even in the by-election which happened not long after. The RO and we considered contacting the police regarding taking the ballot papers away but determined the risk to be exceptionally low as they were clearly just disgruntled and no intention of trying to manufacture their own ballot papers and get them all stuffed into the ballot box with 2 hours before close of poll.

 

[eotw]

My perverse task in this result is that it is worse for Reform than Labour. Reform only managed 29% of the vote - people are unwilling to vote for them even when there is no risk if a Reform government as a result. Labour can get the disaffected voters back but I suspect Reform will struggle to break 30% nationally.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Second place in Gorton and Denton. Time for Nige to steal a few more Tory MPs instead?

In the Gorton and Denton by-election compared to the General Election on 4 July 2024 the vote share changes are Green +28% Labour -25% Reform UK +15% Conservatives -9%. The 48% by-election turnout is about the same as at the General Election. The switch compared to the General Election is almost entirely Conservative to Reform UK and Labour to Green. There is no shift from Labour to Reform UK.

The message from this Gorton and Denton by-election won by the Green Party and the Senedd Caerphilly by-election in November 2025 won by Plaid Cymru is many voters will switch parties to block Reform UK from winning. These are not good results for Reform UK.

Reform UK clearly attracts some Tory voters especially in strongly working class constituencies but I expect their attempts to attract Tory voters will be a lot more mixed in well to do Conservative constituencies. Supporting fracking is not a recipe for attracting a lot of voters in the traditionally Conservative shires.

 

[SuspectUsual]

My perverse task in this result is that it is worse for Reform than Labour. Reform only managed 29% of the vote - people are unwilling to vote for them even when there is no risk if a Reform government as a result. Labour can get the disaffected voters back but I suspect Reform will struggle to break 30% nationally.

I do wonder if Reform are in a bit of a bind. They don't exist without Farage, but they can't win with him, because a big chunk of people see him as being toxic

 

[norbitonflyer]

It has now got slightly more difficult to find a plumber..............

 

[SuspectUsual]

Reform UK clearly attracts some Tory voters especially in strongly working class constituencies but I expect their attempts to attract Tory voters will be a lot more mixed in well to do Conservative constituencies

We were discussing this over breakfast. We live in a solid Tory seat (Malton & Thirsk), but I'm a lifelong Labour voter. The last election was my first up here and it's the first time I've lived in a seat that isn't a Labour / Tory marginal where my vote *really* counted. We were wondering if it came to it, would we hold our noses at the next election and vote Tory to keep Reform out. It's a horrible prospect but perhaps the lesser of two evils......