open polity

Tag: Reform

  • “Do You Understand What’s Happening?”: Unpacking the Strategic Intent Behind Reform UK’s Language

    “Do You Understand What’s Happening?”: Unpacking the Strategic Intent Behind Reform UK’s Language

    On September 1st, former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced he was standing down as an MP to focus on an international affairs role. This triggered a by-election in the London seat of Holborn and St Pancras, which he has represented since 2015. The seat has long been a Labour stronghold, but with Zack Polanski announcing that he will run in this by-election, Labour may well lose it. 

    The Labour candidate has a massive responsibility to maintain the seat. Labour has selected Sagal Abdi-Wali for the Holborn and St Pancras by-election. The Camden council leader was tipped as an early favourite to contest the London seat for Labour.  

    News about her potential candidacy sparked a national debate about racism and British identity. This is largely because of comments from Reform UK’s home affairs spokesperson, Zia Yusuf. Last week on X, he posted: “The frontrunner being foisted on the people of Holborn by Labour to replace the former prime minister Keir Starmer in our parliament was born in Somalia. Do you understand what’s happening?” The post has over 8 million views on X.

    He offered no criticism of Abdi-Wali’s record, her work in Camden or any political position she holds. The only objection contained in the post was her country of birth. He was questioning her right to participate in British democracy simply because she was not born here; something that she cannot help.

    Sagal Abdi-Wali arrived in the UK as a child refugee from Somalia over 30 years ago and has since built a career in local government. She leads Camden Council and previously chaired the local constituency Labour Party. Her long-standing dedication to public service clearly demonstrates her commitment to Britain and its values. 

    ​She has previously discussed her experience fleeing Somalia, telling the Labour List website in 2019: “Camden has been my home since I moved here with my family as a child refugee, fleeing war-torn Somalia. “This new home is where I was raised and educated; it’s where I now work for the council and volunteer for local community groups and charities”.

    Questioning her patriotism and Britishness is unnecessary. She is just as British as anyone who was born here. When Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, no one questioned his loyalty to the UK, even though he was born in America. Under a standard where foreign birth disqualifies someone from British governance, which is what Yusuf is alluding to, prominent figures like former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Reform defector Nadhim Zahawi would have been ineligible for office.

    Arguably, a race is involved here. Zia Yusuf is pandering to an audience that sees Britishness through the lens of race and ethnicity. He is playing into a very narrow, exclusionary definition of “Britishness”. This definition alienates British citizens from ethnic minority backgrounds by implying that being born abroad makes them less legitimately British. National belonging and skin colour are often conflated. If you were not born here and if you are not white, then you are not British. His comments serve as a powerful case study in the politics of belonging. 

    The politics of belonging refers to the maintenance of boundaries that separate a particular group into those who belong and those who do not. Yuval-Davis argues that belonging is never fixed; it is a fluid, politically charged process of “bordering” that relies on power dynamics to define who is included and who is excluded. By framing belonging this way, Yuval-Davis highlights how nations, communities, and institutions constantly manage their borders to maintain authority and control over minority or marginalised groups.

    In this case, the racialisation of Britishness as white is marginalising and excluding Sagal Abdi-Wali, because it constructs a symbolic border where authentic national belonging is tied to a specific racial identity. She is being systematically cast as the “other.”  Widespread conflation of “immigrants” and “ethnic minorities”, and questions over the integration and patriotism of people who were not born here, reinforce the idea that some British people are more British than others.

    Zia Yusuf is effectively insinuating that she is not British enough to stand in this by-election. Ultimately, this framing shows that belonging is not merely about legal status, but is an active power dynamic used to control who is permitted to feel fully at home within a nation.

    ​Zia Yusuf is capitalising on public anxiety about immigration, a strategy central to Reform UK’s communications. By posting highly provocative content on social media, the party often shifts mainstream media’s focus and rival politicians’ focus onto territory where Reform feels most comfortable: immigration, border control, and national identity. 

    Through one tweet, he set the national conversation. By framing the selection of a local candidate as a wider symbol of national decline, the tweet turned a localised political appointment into a nationwide referendum on British values.

  • Rupert Lowe’s posts on X could earn him more money than his MP salary

    Rupert Lowe’s posts on X could earn him more money than his MP salary

    Earlier this month, it was revealed that Rupert Lowe, leader of Restore Britain, is on track to earn almost as much from Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) as he does from his salary as an MP. According to his own declarations in the register of MPs’ financial interests, he has earned £932 an hour for his posts on X since the start of the year.

    If his average earnings for 2026 so far continue throughout the year, he would earn just over £93,000: close to the current MPs’ £98,599 annual salary. He could even exceed that figure if the higher rate of earnings in recent months persists.

    Technically, Lowe has not done anything wrong. Most politicians today use social media to reach voters and communicate their policies. He has rightly declared this money, which reinforces the transparency and strength of our democratic system. Ultimately, parliamentary procedures prohibit MPs from concealing external sources of income.

    However, the money he makes from the content he posts could incentivise him to continue being provocative and divisive. Lowe has built significant engagement by posting extreme, inflammatory political content, particularly on immigration. Immigration dominates the political agenda in Britain, and Elon Musk’s X is keeping it mainstream.

    Since Musk’s takeover of Twitter/X, extreme-right content has risen dramatically. Much of it is personally promoted by Musk himself. Users can now make money through Twitter/X’s ‘creator revenue’ programme- a monetisation scheme for those with a ‘premium’ subscription. Premium users are paid according to how their posts and content perform. The more extreme your views, the more likely it is to generate likes, and the more likes, the more money. Politics no longer benefits electorally from outrage, but also financially.

    Lowe’s recent posts on X highlight the extraordinary amount of engagement the Restore leader secures on the platform. In late August, one of his posts stated: “An illegal migrant could read ten thousand Home Office pamphlets in some woeful attempt to ‘integrate’; I’d still want him deported. They broke into our country – they are not welcome here, and they all need to be removed.” This post received over 200,000 views, 29,000 likes and 3,600 reposts.

    Lowe has consistently driven these high levels of engagement, with his reach often enhanced by Musk himself, who has more than 240 million followers. Musk has helped him algorithmically produce this content and spread it. In June last year, Musk appeared to signal support for Lowe’s new political party, Restore Britain, by replying to Lowe’s launch post with a series of Union Jack emojis. He had previously supported Reform UK, but he reversed his support for Nigel Farage after a disagreement over calls to release Tommy Robinson, a notorious far-right activist.

    Historically, we have been concerned about foreign money and donations flowing into our politics. This is because political incentives might arise from this money, and when this happens, politics is no longer about the people. Most recently, Nigel Farage was heavily scrutinised for a £5m donation he received before becoming an MP. Even though Lowe has not been paid directly by Elon Musk in the traditional sense, we should still be asking the same questions. 

    Ultimately, the money Lowe earns from Musk’s platform could be affecting his behaviour because he benefits financially. It could be encouraging him to post even more provocative political content. Creating division and stoking fear online should not be incentivised monetarily because it can have significant consequences. Profit-driven algorithms prioritise outrage to maximise user engagement, which severely damages the fabric of society and further polarises public debate and discourse. 

    Elon Musk stated he bought Twitter for $44 billion to protect and promote free speech. Four years after he acquired the platform, it is hard to believe that this claim is true. Content that aligns with Musk’s views tends to do very well. Musk amplifies politicians he likes, and his platform pays those politicians according to what they generate. Critics argue that this is because he wants to control politics. 

    His control over British politics is clear. Arguably, X played a significant role in damaging the public perception of Keir Starmer during his tenure. A multitude of domestic policy choices drove his low popularity. It was also driven by targeted framing on platforms like X, where public perception of Starmer was heavily damaged by direct interventions from Elon Musk. Musk used his personal account to repeatedly goad and attack the former Prime Minister

    Following the UK riots in the summer of 2024, Musk amplified the highly damaging nickname “Two-Tier Keir”. The label suggested that Starmer’s government practised a “two-tier” system of policing that treated right-wing demonstrations more harshly than left-wing or minority protests. Musk routinely interacted with right-wing critics and shared posts framing Starmer’s policies as authoritarian or hypocritical, using his immense reach to project these narratives globally. 

    Musk also played a significant role in the national debate around the UK’s historical grooming gang scandals. He used X to attack Starmer, claiming he was “complicit” in failures to prosecute child sexual exploitation rings during his time as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from 2008 to 2013. Musk stated publicly that Starmer “should be in prison” for his handling of the crisis. Starmer strongly rejected these claims. 

    While this row did not sink Starmer’s popularity, the surrounding issues did highlight existing vulnerabilities. Starmer’s initial refusal to launch a national inquiry, before his eventual U-turn, was unpopular. It allowed political opponents to keep his past legal record under heavy scrutiny. Through his platform, therefore, Musk was able to influence British politics.

    Rupert Lowe earning substantial amounts of money from this platform is very problematic because it could ultimately increase his influence. A US-based billionaire simultaneously paying and boosting an ideologically aligned British politician through his own platform is not a good look for British politics, even if it is technically allowed. 

  • The Clacton By-Election Has Done No Favours For Farage

    The Clacton By-Election Has Done No Favours For Farage

    Last week, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage saw off Count Binface in the Clacton by-election. Farage received 22,239 votes, 1,014 more than his winning total at the 2024 general election, and turnout was 44%. On the surface, winning 63.34% looks good and signals confidence; in reality, this was not a good result. Ultimately, Farage’s decision to resign and trigger this by-election has not paid off. In fact, it has brought him even more scrutiny and bad optics.

    Farage triggered the by-election in July after the Guardian revealed in April 2024 that he had received a £5m personal gift from Christopher Harborne, a Thailand-based crypto billionaire. Following this revelation, he had been hounded by questions about his financial backing. The parliamentary standards watchdog announced it was opening a formal investigation into gifts received by Farage. This undermined his central premise and political strategy, which are anti-establishment. He therefore triggered the by-election in an attempt to take control of the narrative. He said that the “people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions”, and he billed the fight as a “people versus the establishment” by-election.

    Defenders of the Reform leader will say that the criticism is unfair because he received the gift before he became an MP. Farage himself said there was “no obligation” to declare a £5m gift he received from a billionaire backer before he became an MP. However, the House of Commons code of conduct states that new MPs “must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election”. Therefore, Labour and other rival parties had every right to accuse Farage of breaking parliamentary rules. 

    Transparency and accountability are key pillars of British democracy. There are robust mechanisms in place to ensure that these values are upheld. Trying to use a by-election to obviate the formal investigation was a poor choice because Parliamentary rules dictate that an active inquiry by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards pauses upon resignation, but immediately reactivates the moment the individual returns to the House of Commons. After winning the by-election on Friday morning, the Standards watchdog resumed its investigation. Farage clearly misread the strength of the country’s political institutions.

    Winning a majority in Clacton should not mean that the issue of his financial backing is settled. Ultimately, that is not how our system works. If you have infringed parliamentary rules, it is for parliamentary watchdogs and commissioners to investigate whether they think there has been wrongdoing and reach their own conclusion. Because of this, Farage’s, and therefore Reform’s, political future hangs in the balance.

    If parliament imposes sanctions for failing to declare the gifts, Farage may be suspended from the House of Commons and potentially face a second by-election. This recent by-election is estimated to have cost the taxpayer £250,000. Reform UK offered to cover the costs of organising the poll, but political parties are barred from doing so to maintain the independence and impartiality of the electoral process. Therefore, the potential of another one could make them even less favourable with people.

    The way the election played out also did no favours for Farage and Reform. Farage claimed that this election would be the people vs the establishment, but many of the established parties decided not to partake in this show. Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and the Greens all declined to field candidates and take part in what they called a “media circus” and “vanity project”. Because of this, Farage’s main competition was Count Binface, the self-declared “entirely independent space warrior” created by the comedian Jon Harvey. He was able to run because, in the UK, almost anyone can run for parliament – only a £500 deposit and 10 supporters of the bid are needed. The optics of this for Farage weren’t great. 

    The parody candidate won 9455 votes, or one in four of the votes cast. In his “victory speech” posted on X, he said that this was a 10,000% increase on the 95 votes he managed against Andy Burnham in the Makerfield byelection. The fact that a novelty candidate won 26.9% of the vote share suggests that many people were dissatisfied with Nigel Farage and his financial controversies. Count Binface effectively consolidated the anti-reform turnout and humiliated Farage.

    Farage did not attend the official vote count and cancelled a planned victory speech. Reform UK said police had told him not to attend because of a “credible threat” against him, although Essex police contradicted this claim. The Liberal Democrats said Farage had come away from the by-election “looking daft”.

    All of this has come against the backdrop of a new national government. Labour leader Andy Burnham is already proving more popular than his predecessor Keir Starmer. There is early evidence of something of a Burnham bounce for Labour, which has disrupted Reform’s long-standing lead in the opinion polls. This, coupled with the renewed focus on Farage’s 5m gift and the growing threat of Restore Britain, has put serious doubts on Reform’s long-term viability.

  • Local Election Results: Why Reform UK’s Local Success Is Not a National Certainty

    Local Election Results: Why Reform UK’s Local Success Is Not a National Certainty

    Much of the discussion that has followed last week’s local elections has centred on Reform’s staggering success. The party’s increased support saw them win 1453 councillors and take control of councils from Labour, including Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland and Gateshead.

    For many of Reforms critics, these results are discouraging. To them, it indicates that the UK is moving towards a dangerous path of far-right politics characterised by exclusion and intolerance. Several of the elected Reform candidates are already under fire due to racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic comments and social media posts.

    While the results were an enormous feat for the party, a closer look at these results paints a picture that not enough people are talking about.

    Within hours of the polling stations closing, multiple media outlets were declaring victory for Reform. They were suggesting even more potential success at the next general election. In an interview about Reform’s electoral success, Sky News’s Beth Rigby even asked Farage if he sees himself as a Prime Minister in waiting.

    These results are favourable for the Reforms’ hopes of forming a government. However, leaving it at this conclusion is somewhat of an oversimplification of the results. To properly understand these results and what they mean, we first need to understand what local elections are and how they work.

    How do the local elections work?
    Local councils provide the facilities and services in your area. The type of council you have, and the responsibilities they have, vary depending on where you live. Local councillors oversee the council’s work, setting the strategies and priorities. Things such as council tax, local services, planning, local climate change commitments, and policing commitments are all overseen by the local council. Within this are issues such as roads, potholes, maintaining public spaces, affordable housing, bin collection, etc., and these tend to be the most concerning issues for voters at these elections.

    Boroughs across the country are divided into areas called wards, and in each ward, residents can vote for as many council seats as are contested. The candidate you vote for does not have to be attached to a political party, and you can vote for a mix of candidates. In most London boroughs, the council leader is chosen by the political group with the most councillors. In the five boroughs—Croydon, Hackney, Lewisham, Newham and Tower Hamlets— residents can also vote for a mayor as well as their ward councillors.

    If a party dominates the seats in one borough, it takes control of the council; if there is no outright majority, then the borough has no overall control, and coalitions are formed.


    Turnout at local elections tends to be lower than in general elections because voters’ priorities differ. A vote for a particular candidate in a local election does not guarantee a vote for the party they represent in national elections.

    ‘Get Starmer Out’
    This particular local election revealed misconceptions surrounding local elections and how they work. This is something that Nigel Farage and his party took advantage of. The central messaging of Reforms campaign was to oust Prime Minister Keir Starmer and to take control of illegal immigration.

    According to YouGov, Reform voters were the exception when it came to the typical local issues that tend to be most important to voters, with immigration being their number one local issue. Immigration, however, is typically a national issue, and so major changes can only be made through the national government. There were even some Reform voters left confused when they did not see Farage on their ballots. Reform UK were therefore able to successfully campaign on national issues to mobilise voters at the local level. Perhaps this is because they aren’t delivering on their promises for the local councils already in their control, and so stoking fear over national issues was a more beneficial tactic.

    How are Councils Already Under Reforms Control Faring?
    Despite promising to cut council tax, the Reform-led council in Kent voted through a 3.99% council tax increase, one percentage point under the limit before a referendum is required.

    In Derbyshire, the Reform-led council planned to shut eight care homes, but it was eventually abandoned following backlash. In West Northamptonshire, there has been a sharp increase in complaints about potholes since Reform took power.

    In the past year, the party has lost more than 70 of its elected local councillors, according to research by Liberal Democrat peer Mark Pack, with some being sacked or forced to resign.

    It appears that cracks are already forming, and there is a chance that the party will self-implode. Their local success puts pressure on them because they are now expected to deliver, and if they don’t, the blame may shift towards them. Their present success may have long-term consequences. As of now, there are still 3 years until the next general election, and so failure at the local level could cause resentment nationally.

    Farage’s ‘Cause for Concern’
    Furthermore, the local election results show that a large majority of the population did not actually vote for Reform. In the overall vote share, Reform received around 26%.

    Pollster Peter Kellner said that, despite the significant gains, there is cause for Nigel Farage to be “privately worried”.

    In an article on Substack, Kellner wrote that: “In last year’s local elections, Reform won 41% of all seats contested across England.

    “On the basis of the overnight figures, this year’s tally is around 33%.

    “If there were no polls, and there had been no elections last year, this year’s figure would be astonishing.

    “But we do have the record on recent polls and elections, and it seems clear that Reform has peaked.”

    He added, “Under first-past-the-post, this matters. Our voting system helped Reform last year, when it won a much higher proportion of seats than votes.

    “Its support is now at the point where that bonus has started to shrink. If more voters desert the party, it could suffer badly – falling short in many councils and parliamentary seats that it would have won last year.”

    Additionally while Reform dominated the number of seats won, Labour still had the most overall control of the councils with 28. In contrast, Reform had 14, more than the Conservatives with 9 but less than the Liberal Democrats with 15.

    Therefore, as it stands, if there were a general election, Reform would fail to win a majority, resulting in a hung parliament. In this outcome, they would have to enter a coalition.

    Historic Strides for Greens not Just Reform
    The downward trend in support for Reform indicates a potential ceiling, whereas the Green Party’s gains suggest a burgeoning political force.

    The Greens didn’t see the numbers that Reform did. Some experts have even said they didn’t do as well as expected. However, they have taken great strides and can continue to build upon their success. Unlike Reform’s politics of exclusion and division, the Green Party is offering hope to voters, a genuine alternative to Labour, and this can be seen through their results.

    Polling expert Sir John Curtice said the Greens had recorded their “best-ever performance”, with their projected national vote share being 18% as he revealed the projected national share of the vote for Britain, behind Reform but ahead of Labour and the Tories, who were both on 17% and the Liberal Democrats on 16%.

    Winning 587 seats, they took control of Norwich, Hastings and the London borough of Waltham Forest, as well as winning the mayoral contests in Hackney and Lewisham—former Labour strongholds— for the first time.

    Speaking after the Hackney mayoralty victory, Green Party Leader Zack Polanski said: “Two-party politics is not just dying, it is dead, and it is buried.

    “And actually, whether it’s here that Labour have been rejected, or whether we’re seeing around the country, it’s very clear that the new politics is the Green Party versus Reform.”

    Another incredible statistic for the Greens from this election is that they received 1.95 million votes (excluding mayoral votes). This is approximately 1 million more than their best record in 2023. It also means that more people voted for them at this year’s local elections than at the 2024 general election, which is a remarkable outcome.

    It is clear to see that the picture hasn’t been fully completed yet; there is still a long way to go until the next election, and so much can happen in that time. Starmer may very well be ousted, but that would result in a Labour Party leadership contest rather than a general election. There are positives that Reform can take from this election, but the pressure is now on them to deliver for their residents. Looking at the results at face value can feel somewhat demoralising for those fearing Reform’s rise. However, a closer look reveals that their future national electoral victory is nowhere near guaranteed, and there is still room for hope to prevail.

  • Polling Paradox: Reform’s Lead, Leadership Distrust, and the Search for Credible Change

    Polling Paradox: Reform’s Lead, Leadership Distrust, and the Search for Credible Change

    Recent polling highlights a defining paradox of the current British political moment. In Ipsos’s Headline Voting Intention, November 2025, Reform UK leads national vote share on 33 per cent, roughly 25 points ahead of Labour. Yet in the same month’s Satisfaction with Leaders and the Government polling, dissatisfaction with Reform’s leader ranks among the highest recorded. High electoral support combined with deep leadership distrust reveals a volatile electorate driven more by rejection of the political status quo than by confidence in an alternative governing project.

    This paradox reflects an important shift in voter behaviour. Historically, parties such as UKIP functioned as temporary outlets for Conservative dissatisfaction, with voters often returning to the Conservatives once elections approached and governing choices narrowed. Current polling suggests this dynamic has reversed. Rather than Reform bleeding support back to the Conservatives, it is now Conservative voters who are defecting to Reform. This indicates not a fleeting protest surge but a deeper erosion of Conservative credibility as a governing party.

    This shift is best understood through dealignment rather than ideology. Conservative voters have not moved to Reform because they trust its leadership or policy coherence. Instead, they appear to have disengaged from the Conservatives as a competent vehicle for managing the economy, housing, and public services. Years of political instability and declining living standards have weakened the Conservatives’ reputation for competence. When governing credibility collapses, voters become willing to defect even to parties they view sceptically.

    Leadership dissatisfaction therefore has not constrained Reform’s polling performance because dissatisfaction has become systemic. Ipsos’s November 2025 data show low satisfaction levels across party leaders and government institutions more broadly. In this environment, leadership approval loses its traditional role as a filter. Voters increasingly prioritise expressing frustration over endorsing a trusted leader. Reform benefits from being outside government and outside the established Labour Conservative cycle, even while its leader remains unpopular.

    Importantly, this does not mean the electorate has radicalised in line with Reform’s rhetoric. Polling and voter research suggest that support for Reform is driven by a combination of cultural grievance and economic insecurity, with issues such as migration frequently interpreted through their perceived impact on living standards, housing, and public services. Reform’s appeal lies less in ideological extremism than in its willingness to articulate decline at a time when mainstream parties are perceived to minimise it.

    This dynamic creates space for alternative challengers. The Green Party occupies a notably different position in Ipsos polling. While its overall vote share remains lower, leadership dissatisfaction is comparatively low, and a substantial proportion of respondents select “don’t know” when asked to evaluate Green leadership. In a fragmented political system, uncertainty is electorally softer than rejection. Combined with a gradually expanding support base, this positions the Greens as a potential beneficiary of continued volatility, particularly if dissatisfaction with both Labour and Reform hardens.

    Reform’s relative strength lies primarily in valence politics rather than ideological positioning. Its migration narrative is consistently linked to housing shortages, pressure on public services, and declining wages. These are competence-based evaluations. When parties converge programmatically, voters prioritise who they believe understands and can manage problems rather than who best represents a traditional ideological position. Reform has been effective at owning the diagnosis of decline, even if voters remain unconvinced by its capacity to govern.

    These developments reflect broader structural changes in British politics. The traditional left right divide has weakened, and electoral behaviour increasingly resembles that of a multiparty system, even as institutional structures remain two-party dominated. Labour and the Conservatives are no longer as strongly underpinned by their historical ideologies, although those philosophical roots still shape voter perceptions. Long-standing reputation and experience now function as double-edged swords, signalling competence to some voters while tying parties to past failures for others.

    This helps explain why the Liberal Democrats continue to struggle to translate vote share into broad electoral breakthroughs. Their support is often squeezed by tactical voting under first past the post, with voters reverting to Labour or the Conservatives in marginal seats. Reform and the Greens, by contrast, have benefited from political volatility by offering clearer points of distinction, even if those distinctions do not yet amount to governing credibility.

    The unresolved question is whether any challenger can convert dissatisfaction into durable trust. Reform’s coalition is currently broad but fragile, built on rejection rather than confidence. The Greens’ appeal is softer but potentially more expandable. Until a party or leader can convincingly signal credible change, British politics is likely to remain characterised by high vote shares, high dissatisfaction, and persistent instability rather than ideological realignment.

    L Shiels