Reform UK discussion

[Tetchytyke]

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.

Illegal migration isn't, in the grand scheme of things, a huge issue. It is about 40,000 people a year coming in the small boats. We'd all prefer the number was about 40,000 lower than that, but I find the amount of media attention placed on such a small number of people to be bizarre.

The Greens don't want "open borders". They want to allow more legal migration routes. They argue that if you allow more legal migration then you sort out the illegal migration.

As it stands, the only people who get to the UK are the people who are rich enough or strong enough to get here. That's why the people on the small boats tend to be young men; older people, women, and children aren't able to make the journey. You also have no idea who these people are when they arrive in Dover.

But if you open up the legal migration routes, you get to vet these people in advance and you get to be more discerning about who comes in. At the very least, you know who these people are before they get here.

The Greens also propose that asylum seekers be allowed to work. As it stands, asylum seekers are not allowed to work, so the government is entirely responsible for ensuring they are fed and accommodated. But let them work and hey, guess what, they can pay for their own food and housing.

 

[Topological]

Illegal migration isn't, in the grand scheme of things, a huge issue. It is about 40,000 people a year coming in the small boats. We'd all prefer the number was about 40,000 lower than that, but I find the amount of media attention placed on such a small number of people to be bizarre.

The Greens don't want "open borders". They want to allow more legal migration routes. They argue that if you allow more legal migration then you sort out the illegal migration.

As it stands, the only people who get to the UK are the people who are rich enough or strong enough to get here. That's why the people on the small boats tend to be young men; older people, women, and children aren't able to make the journey. You also have no idea who these people are when they arrive in Dover.

But if you open up the legal migration routes, you get to vet these people in advance and you get to be more discerning about who comes in. At the very least, you know who these people are before they get here.

The Greens also propose that asylum seekers be allowed to work. As it stands, asylum seekers are not allowed to work, so the government is entirely responsible for ensuring they are fed and accommodated. But let them work and hey, guess what, they can pay for their own food and housing.

I only saw the Green position on Question Time last week and the spokesperson there did nothing to dispell the idea that "anyone who wishes to come to the UK should be allowed to do so". Your interpretation suggests that there are people for whom the Greens do not allow entry.

On Dover. The whole point is that people smuggling gangs are making huge sums of money from this illegal entry route. The solution is to set up processing locations in areas where we know there are genuine asylum cases. Simply arriving by boat should be a reason for refusal. That would shut down the gangs immediately.

I have not seen either major party go so far as to say process elsewhere, but at least Rwanda was a way of saying that processing will still be far from the UK. Maybe the Greens are saying that, but it was not what I saw from them.

This is at least the sort of discussion that should be taking place. The main parties have a lot to answer for.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Cheating.
Sectarianism.
Poor turnout.
Never any real chance of winning.

Any more excuses? Can they not just settle on one?

They seem to be shocked that members of a community that they quite openly despise didn't vote for them. They threw everything at their campaign, but now supposedly never had any realistic expectation of winning?
Some of their supporters are now claiming it's because 53% of people didn't bother to vote, although the turnout is roughly the same as the last general election, and only around 10% lower than the 2019 elections - they also seem to be assuming that those people would've voted Reform if they had turned out.

What is it with the right and their inability to simply accept losing a vote? What was that phrase they kept repeating after the Brexit referendum- you lost, get over it?

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

I think it's fine to call out racism for what it is.

 

[35B]

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).

I'm not calling the electorate "stupid". I am acknowledging that their interest in the minutiae of any particular issue is limited, and that they are not necessarily consistent - see the example from Jerusalem in about AD32, where the population went from "Hosanna" to "Crucify Him" in a matter of days.

This is where I think the issue of immigration is really, really, tricky. Farage has made it politically important, by presenting a really difficult to control issue as a sign of government weakness & lack of control*, but knowing a) that the numbers aren't that great, and b) it's not really what drives migration. He's pushed the other parties into making it part of their pitch, and as a result given himself leverage against them when they fail. He's doubled down on it by branding irregular migration as "illegal migration", successfully convincing many that anyone landing on a small boat is "illegal" and therefore shouldn't be here.

That is where the "E350m" was important. Firstly, it played to a sense that there would be a saving (let's ignore the other associated costs). Second, by resisting it, opponents anchored the number in peoples' minds.

All the while, the gain of £350m was being more than spent in additional bureaucracy and opportunity cost through losing single market membership - points that are difficult and messy to get across.

Better by far to focus on the evil** that Farage wants to inflict, by simply drawing attention to what is being done in the US.

* - a lack of control that is in significant part because of the campaign he ran.
** - he chose to allow a message around ICE-like enforcement, and deserves to be tarred with the evil of that organisation on his name, as showing what he's really like.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I only saw the Green position on Question Time last week and the spokesperson there did nothing to dispell the idea that "anyone who wishes to come to the UK should be allowed to do so". Your interpretation suggests that there are people for whom the Greens do not allow entry.

This is from the Greens' 2024 manifesto (link here ==> https://greenparty.org.uk/about/our-manifesto/a-fairer-greener-welcome/)

We welcome the contributions that migrants and refugees make to British society. We want to be welcoming, promote social cohesion and support migrants to put down roots.

Green MPs will push for:

• An end to the hostile environment.
• An end to the minimum income requirements for spouses of those holding work visas.
• Safe routes to sanctuary for those fleeing persecution.
• The dysfunctional Home Office to be replaced with a new Department of Migration, separating this function from the criminal justice system.
• An end to immigration detention for all migrants unless they are a danger to public safety.
• Abolition of the ‘no recourse to public funds’ condition that exacerbates social, economic, and racial inequalities.
• Those seeking asylum and protection to be permitted to work while their application is being decided.

Now it could and probably should have been a lot clearer, but the bit I've bolded makes clear that people would need to apply, and therefore that presumably some applications would fail

(For what its worth, I disagree with a lot of this policy)

This is their current policy - https://migration.greenparty.org.uk/migration-policy/

The Green Party in government will:

1. Implement a fair and humane system of managed immigration
2. Treat all migrants as if they are citizens
3. Give all residents the right to vote
4. Help families to be together
5. Dismantle the Home Office
6. Abolish the No Recourse to Public Funds condition
7. Abolish the ten year route to settlement
8. Stop the profiteering from application fees
9. Stop putting people in prison because of their immigration status
10. Accept our responsibility for the climate emergency and support the people forced to move

I think point 1 referring to "managed migration" is clear that it isn't an unregulated free for all they're proposing

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

I totally agree with you, growing up in Bradford in the 70s & 80s it was obvious the authorities couldn't give a toss about the poorer ends of society. It was way easier to just brush the city's problems under the carpet and hope they didn't bother them, or label the families / kids as beyond hope or trouble makers. Much in the same way parties like Reform are addressing many ethnic communities today.

However, and this might be a subject for a different thread, I do these days wonder if there was more to it? Expose one layer of abusers, and risk opening Pandora's Box to more of it higher up in society. Look at how much time and effort went into keeping people like Saville out of trouble until after he died. Perhaps something more sinister was at play here?

 

[Tetchytyke]

On Dover. The whole point is that people smuggling gangs are making huge sums of money from this illegal entry route. The solution is to set up processing locations in areas where we know there are genuine asylum cases. Simply arriving by boat should be a reason for refusal. That would shut down the gangs immediately.

Moving people into offshore detention is an abhorrent policy, as we've seen in Australia. It also doesn't work. Lucrative for the corporations who run the offshore prisons, though. Anyone would think that was the real motivation.

The issue is that you cannot apply for asylum if you are abroad. If you're not in a safe country then, fairly obviously, you can't apply there. It's not like you can ask the Taliban not to shoot you whilst the Home Office processes your claim. And if you are in a safe country (or one that the UK decides is safe- which isn't always the same thing, as Rwanda proves) then you can't apply as you're already in a safe country.

Which is why Turkey has three million Syrian refugees whilst Reform moan about 40,000 boat people.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

No you don't. You just need to submit a National Insurance number which matches the name. It is incredibly insecure; that is not proving who 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.

Not hard to do the same signature twice.

 

[greatkingrat]

Illegal migration isn't, in the grand scheme of things, a huge issue. It is about 40,000 people a year coming in the small boats. We'd all prefer the number was about 40,000 lower than that, but I find the amount of media attention placed on such a small number of people to be bizarre.

The Greens don't want "open borders". They want to allow more legal migration routes. They argue that if you allow more legal migration then you sort out the illegal migration.

As it stands, the only people who get to the UK are the people who are rich enough or strong enough to get here. That's why the people on the small boats tend to be young men; older people, women, and children aren't able to make the journey. You also have no idea who these people are when they arrive in Dover.

But if you open up the legal migration routes, you get to vet these people in advance and you get to be more discerning about who comes in. At the very least, you know who these people are before they get here.

The Greens also propose that asylum seekers be allowed to work. As it stands, asylum seekers are not allowed to work, so the government is entirely responsible for ensuring they are fed and accommodated. But let them work and hey, guess what, they can pay for their own food and housing.

The obvious flaw with that plan, is that unless you accept everyone, you are still going to get the people who have been rejected trying to arrive on small boats.

 

[Sorcerer]

This is their current policy - https://migration.greenparty.org.uk/migration-policy/

I think point 1 referring to "managed migration" is clear that it isn't an unregulated free for all they're proposing

It might as well be given that "managed migration" is such a vague term and that their following policies are practically working towards an open door policy. Treating migrants like citizens is fine from a human rights point of view (as in you can't discriminate against them or pay them less for the same work) but giving every resident the right to vote, ending imprisonment of illegal immigrants and helping families be together just sounds like an invitation to come over.

I don't mind this kind of policy as long as it's reciprocal (like the UK and Ireland) but most countries wouldn't extend those same rights and privileges. Even the UAE where some high-earning British expats like to move to isn't going to be giving them citizenship or treating them like native Emiratis anytime soon. As far as they're concerned, either get to work with a valid sponsorship/visa or get ready to go home.

I think the Greens have pretty much resigned themselves to the immigration debate being unwinnable and will probably try to capture the vote on wealth inequality with similarly populist policies like wealth taxes. But they and Reform are about as unserious as each other, and going back to Reform specifically I welcome the arrival of the Restore Britain party if it means splitting the right-wing populist vote and keeping them out of power.

 

[Tetchytyke]

However, and this might be a subject for a different thread, I do these days wonder if there was more to it? Expose one layer of abusers, and risk opening Pandora's Box to more of it higher up in society. Look at how much time and effort went into keeping people like Saville out of trouble until after he died. Perhaps something more sinister was at play here?

I think this is exactly why the focus is on the ethnic and cultural background of these particular gangs.

These abusive men used drugs and alcohol to groom vulnerable young children. That was their method of getting access to these children.

Abusive men from white middle class backgrounds didn't. They were respectable people so they became involved in children's care homes. They ran them (e.g. Medomsley Detention Centre) or they fundraised for them (Savile) or they were pillars of the community who took an interest in them (Cyril Smith).

In fact the case of Cyril Smith neatly proves my point. Rochdale Council ignored his victims just as much as they ignored the victims of the Pakistani gangs.

 

[35B]

No you don't. You just need to submit a National Insurance number which matches the name. It is incredibly insecure; that is not proving who you are.

It's insecure, but it's also a primary key to many of the DWP systems* and therefore of some use to validate that the person named lives at the premises they claim to be living at.

If family voting (let's be honest and call it what it is, which is a form of coercive control) is an issue, no form of security is going to prevent that - the controller will exercise their influence by whatever means.

However, if we look at the Democracy Volunteers report on this by-election, they say that it at most affected 1% of votes cast.

* - The UK.gov website for applications explicitly mentions cross-checking with DWP records.

 

[nap666]

No you don't. You just need to submit a National Insurance number which matches the name. It is incredibly insecure; that is not proving who you are.


Not hard to do the same signature twice.

The initial application for a postal vote is ID checked against DWP databases to confirm name, NINO, DOB & address and then provide or supply a copy of a signature, the number of applications that are challenged is not massive. Biggest issues are around signature quality and how many cannot provide correct NINO &/or DOB.
If the DWP check fails we are able to check council databases as well, this can show up other issues with council tax single discounts or benefit claims not having the person resident.

When the postal packs are returned signature and DOB are compared to application before the vote is put forward to the count, main reasons for rejection are date of signing or date of election entered, partners signing each others pack, occasionally family members have completed others documents and got DOB wrong and signature does not match.

If REFORM believe and have evidence of fraud they can apply for an Election Petition to annul the result, they wont as the cost can be prohibitive if they lose.

 

[AlterEgo]

If family voting (let's be honest and call it what it is, which is a form of coercive control) is an issue, no form of security is going to prevent that - the controller will exercise their influence by whatever means.

Well, no, they won't, because we have a secret ballot. Someone could badger and bully me all week to vote Reform but when I get to the booth I just vote for someone else and lie when I get out. The coercion is in standing over the person and witnessing it, and making sure your will is carried out.

However, if we look at the Democracy Volunteers report on this by-election, they say that it at most affected 1% of votes cast.

No, they say it affected 12% of the votes they observed in this by-election.

The observer team saw family voting in 15 of the 22 polling stations observed, some 32 cases in total, nine cases in one polling station alone. The team observed a sample of 545 voters casting their vote – meaning 12% of those voters observed either caused or were affected by family voting.

Democracy Volunteers Major Concerns over Family Voting in Gorton and Denton Poll

‘Today we have seen concerningly high levels of family voting in Gorton and Denton. Based on our assessment of today’s observations, we have seen the highest levels of family voting at any el…

democracyvolunteers.org

 

[35B]

Well, no, they won't, because we have a secret ballot. Someone could badger and bully me all week to vote Reform but when I get to the booth I just vote for someone else and lie when I get out. The coercion is in standing over the person and witnessing it, and making sure your will is carried out.

Coercive control is about more than just that, which is one of the reasons that it is so toxic and dangerous. You might well do as you say, as would I, but many victims of coercive control lose the ability to make those decisions for themselves.

No, they say it affected 12% of the votes they observed in this by-election.

Democracy Volunteers Major Concerns over Family Voting in Gorton and Denton Poll

‘Today we have seen concerningly high levels of family voting in Gorton and Denton. Based on our assessment of today’s observations, we have seen the highest levels of family voting at any el…

democracyvolunteers.org

Correction noted - I went by an earlier BBC report which I now understand relates to the Helsby by-election. However, given their very limited sample, covering just 2% of the total polling station opening hours*, I'd want rather more corroboration than is in that report - especially given the failure to report this to the authorities during the election.

* - 45 polling stations, open for 15 hours each, = 675 hours open. Visited 22, for 30-45 minutes each; assume 45 minutes, that's (0.75*22*15)/675

 

[Topological]

Coercive control is about more than just that, which is one of the reasons that it is so toxic and dangerous. You might well do as you say, as would I, but many victims of coercive control lose the ability to make those decisions for themselves.

Correction noted - I went by an earlier BBC report which I now understand relates to the Helsby by-election. However, given their very limited sample, covering just 2% of the total polling station opening hours*, I'd want rather more corroboration than is in that report - especially given the failure to report this to the authorities during the election.

* - 45 polling stations, open for 15 hours each, = 675 hours open. Visited 22, for 30-45 minutes each; assume 45 minutes, that's (0.75*22*15)/675

There are questions around how representative the stations visited were. There are then questions about the representativeness of the times visited. 22% is still a high number and suggests that it is not infeasible that the true number is above 5%, and it remains plausible that the true number is above 40% by the same statistical arguments.

I do agree on coercion as I said before. Anonymous in person voting allows some cases to be overcome, but certainly not all. Postal voting allows less cases to be overcome.

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

Moving people into offshore detention is an abhorrent policy, as we've seen in Australia. It also doesn't work. Lucrative for the corporations who run the offshore prisons, though. Anyone would think that was the real motivation.

The issue is that you cannot apply for asylum if you are abroad. If you're not in a safe country then, fairly obviously, you can't apply there. It's not like you can ask the Taliban not to shoot you whilst the Home Office processes your claim. And if you are in a safe country (or one that the UK decides is safe- which isn't always the same thing, as Rwanda proves) then you can't apply as you're already in a safe country.

Which is why Turkey has three million Syrian refugees whilst Reform moan about 40,000 boat people.

We are allowed to differ on the use of off-shore detention. Though once asylum is refused (because arriving by small boat is an automatic refusal) then detention is needed less anyway.

As for applying from other countries. The solution is to designate sufficiently large an area part of the UK and/or to amend the ruling to allow applications from designated pieces of land.

If it was the case that the French were fleeing France (or any of the other countries we share a sea with) then things are different. However, the UK is not the first safe country encountered, so we are not condemning anyone by processing elsewhere.

 

[JGurney]

No, they say it affected 12% of the votes they observed in this by-election.

I think exactly what was observed needs clarifying. I doubt observers were able to distinguish between literal family members and friends or non-cohabiting couples. It is also unclear how many votes were altered due to this.

I suspect some observations of multiple people in booths related to what I think are called 'BFF's' - friends in the habit of doing things together, who did not respect the poling station rules. The same sort of people who approach a station ticket office and try to combine buying a complicated ticket with discussing some completely separate topic with the friend stood beside them, or those who routinely discuss intimate text messages from relationship partners with friends then discuss responses before sending them. Those who do that sort of thing would think nothing of chattering to their friend in the polling booth, perhaps without it affecting their vote at all.

IMO while some of this may be harmless as far as influencing votes goes, it should still be prevented as it is hard to distinguish idle chatter from coercive behaviour in such a setting.

 

[The exile]

I think exactly what was observed needs clarifying. I doubt observers were able to distinguish between literal family members and friends or non-cohabiting couples. It is also unclear how many votes were altered due to this.

I suspect some observations of multiple people in booths related to what I think are called 'BFF's' - friends in the habit of doing things together, who did not respect the poling station rules. The same sort of people who approach a station ticket office and try to combine buying a complicated ticket with discussing some completely separate topic with the friend stood beside them, or those who routinely discuss intimate text messages from relationship partners with friends then discuss responses before sending them. Those who do that sort of thing would think nothing of chattering to their friend in the polling booth, perhaps without it affecting their vote at all.

IMO while some of this may be harmless as far as influencing votes goes, it should still be prevented as it is hard to distinguish idle chatter from coercive behaviour in such a setting.

And should be relatively easy to resolve - larger rooms with larger distances between booths and “one at a time” or you’re out.

 

[Bald Rick]

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

Lib Dems didnt really try. I don’t know about the Tories.

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.

That is fascinatingand horrifying - not specifically about the voting, but that anyone felt the need to ask their partner who to vote for.

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.

Agreed. Although I would amend to all other sources of earnings rather than income. If someone is independently wealthy, you can’t deny them earnign interest on their investments. But I strongly beleive that MPs should be full time MOS and not part time lawyers, doctors, TV hosts, etc.

 

[35B]

Agreed. Although I would amed to all other sources of earnings rather than income. If someone is independently wealthy, you can’t deny them earnign interest on their investments. But I strongly beleive that MPs should be full time MOS and not part time lawyers, doctors, TV hosts, etc.

So what happens when an MP is promoted to be a minister? They can't be a full time MP at that point, because they have a full time ministerial job.

More to the point, I'd argue that part of the problem is that there are too many MPs, with too little to do, looking for activity. I'd reduce the number and embrace them being part time - and pay accordingly.

 

[BeijingDave]

I think exactly what was observed needs clarifying. I doubt observers were able to distinguish between literal family members and friends or non-cohabiting couples. It is also unclear how many votes were altered due to this.

I suspect some observations of multiple people in booths related to what I think are called 'BFF's' - friends in the habit of doing things together, who did not respect the poling station rules. The same sort of people who approach a station ticket office and try to combine buying a complicated ticket with discussing some completely separate topic with the friend stood beside them, or those who routinely discuss intimate text messages from relationship partners with friends then discuss responses before sending them. Those who do that sort of thing would think nothing of chattering to their friend in the polling booth, perhaps without it affecting their vote at all.

IMO while some of this may be harmless as far as influencing votes goes, it should still be prevented as it is hard to distinguish idle chatter from coercive behaviour in such a setting.

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

 

[DarloRich]

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

Because reform won.........

 

[brad465]

So what happens when an MP is promoted to be a minister? They can't be a full time MP at that point, because they have a full time ministerial job.

More to the point, I'd argue that part of the problem is that there are too many MPs, with too little to do, looking for activity. I'd reduce the number and embrace them being part time - and pay accordingly.

In my opinion, if we get PR with regional lists, some MPs elected in a given bloc can be ministers, while others do local representation.

 

[JamesT]

Agreed. Although I would amed to all other sources of earnings rather than income. If someone is independently wealthy, you can’t deny them earnign interest on their investments. But I strongly beleive that MPs should be full time MOS and not part time lawyers, doctors, TV hosts, etc.

In principal that sounds good, but given the precarious nature of politics I wonder how feasible it is to put your entire life outside politics on hold whilst you're an MP. Especially given this could be for a period as short as a few months for those elected in a by-election.

 

[35B]

In my opinion, if we get PR with regional lists, some MPs elected in a given bloc can be ministers, while others do local representation.

An MP is an MP. The suggestion was that they should not be allowed a second job. Being a minister is a second job, in addition to being the elected representative for Much Snoring.

There may or may not be merit in that approach to regional lists, but it doesn't avoid the question of fact that advocates of "no second job" struggle with - if being a Member of Parliament is, in and of itself, so much a full time job that an MP cannot justify holding a second job, then that rules out holding ministerial office.

 

[Topological]

Because reform won.........

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.

 

[35B]

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.

I think the suggestion is that Reform are making a fuss because they didn't win. I suspect that to be the core fact.

 

[Topological]

I think the suggestion is that Reform are making a fuss because they didn't win. I suspect that to be the core fact.

But it is Democracy Volunteers who create the numbers, not Reform.

So the percentage in Runcorn was lower.

So the point about the difference in constituencies is valid irrespective of who makes it.

 

[Bald Rick]

So what happens when an MP is promoted to be a minister? They can't be a full time MP at that point, because they have a full time ministerial job.

I get your point, but with a handful of exceptions, ministerial roles aren’t full time.