Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Reform winning big

1000 replies

Keirawr · 02/05/2025 06:21

Reform had a good night, winning county councils, probably will win a mayoral seat and won the parliamentary by election also.

You don’t have to be a Reform voter to acknowledge that they are taking votes off Labour. Or that they are being electorally effective.

No doubt the ‘basket of deplorables’ crowd will be along in a min with their usual quips calling reform voters names, having learned absolutely 0 from Brexit. Insult the voters at your peril.

These same people also totally miss the point that winning is winning. Feeling all moral and superior about ‘oh well, what will they actually do’ changes nothing.

Perhaps those who label everyone that wants immigration limiting as ‘racist’ Will think again. But likely not.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
MsJinks · 02/05/2025 09:02

‘Insult the Reform voters at your peril’ - well only slight, slight consolation is that it will be at everyone’s peril, including those Reform voters, when there’s voting for leopards will eat your face. Very sad and scary for my kids and grandkids and their generations.

90swithcigarettesandalcohol · 02/05/2025 09:04

Oh and it should be mandated that everyone in the UK has to watch ‘Years and Years’

EasternStandard · 02/05/2025 09:04

Shambles123 · 02/05/2025 09:02

People aren't enjoying the labour government who seem to hate everyone (pensioners, private schools, the disabled, employers, farmers etc etc). Voting for Reform is as per Brexit - a protest against a government they don't identify with.

Edited

Yep they’ve attacked nearly everyone.

badwithnumbers · 02/05/2025 09:05

I think it's really important to point out that whilst Reform did get votes, turnout was so low! So for example, I voted in the West of England mayoral vote and turnout was 30%!! Reform got 6000 less votes than Labour... not exactly a 'big win' for Reform, or Labour in fact, who did actually win. Reform didn't exactly smash it. I don't know anyone who votes Reform, their MPs are criminals. If anyone really thinks Reform are the answer to their problems, they unfortunately lack critical thinking skills.

1dayatatime · 02/05/2025 09:06

NotTerfNorCis · 02/05/2025 08:49

I think the Labour vote was more a protest against the Tories. Now Labour have shown themselves to be little more than Tory Lite - and I say this as a Labour supporter - the protest vote is moving elsewhere.

Indeed there is no way that this soon after the general election that Labour voters would switch back to the Tories -"oh maybe they weren't so bad after all" is a not going to happen for many years.

Despite having over 70 MPs there is silence and tumble weeds from the LibDems.

Voters see that the UK is in a state of managed decline and that Labour don't seem to be that different to the Tories. To be fair they have realised that once in power they have limited room to manoeuvre given the high level of Government debt and can't increase taxation without further harming economic growth.

So Labour voters wanting "real change ", (whatever that is and whether it is even possible given the above constraints) are switching to Reform and the Greens.

Middleagedstriker · 02/05/2025 09:06

Keirawr · 02/05/2025 06:41

Why are these people so predictable?

less than 1 page in and it’s like a bingo call card -

You’re illiterate
You AI
Reform cheated

Like I say, learned nothing from Brexit.

People that voted for Brexit equally have obviously learnt nothing. They fail to see how much Brexit has harmed our economy and hence their day to day lives.
I only know a few Reform voters in real life and sadly they stand up to the stereotype and are racist. Not because they are worried about immigration but because they use racist language (n word/p word) and say openly racist things.

UniqueNavyPlayer · 02/05/2025 09:07

inadequatepillow · 02/05/2025 07:12

The US are at the “find out” stage of “fuck around and find out.” None of the people who voted for Trump thought that they would be negatively impacted by his election.

People who vote Reform want all the brown people and the Polish gone so badly that they don’t consider that the eventual privatisation of the NHS means that they’ll be fucked when they succumb to the effects of their lifelong 40-a-day fag habits and blocked arteries from too many pies.

I am 20 and have 8 known conditions/disabilities. includes developmental delays and an autoimmune disease that could lead to inflammation in my brain and was brought on by stress - the figure doesn’t include diagnosed and debilitating mental health ones. I’m sure you know this but it’s not everyone who has done it to themselves.

LoremIpsumCici · 02/05/2025 09:07

rainingsnoring · 02/05/2025 07:52

Of course, in an ideal world, everyone would read each party manifesto and understand it. I think we both know that this is not what happens though!
A lot of people vote because they like the look of a particular politician or because of one remark that a politician made. I agree that it is illogical but it is also the reality.

Not just read and understand but be able to critically assess it as a list of impossible promises vs a plan that can actually be implemented.

Reform’s manifesto promised the moon and all the cheese on the moon. Only a lunatic would believe it could be implemented.

StrawberryLane · 02/05/2025 09:07

I love how people who voted for the brexit shitshow are still trying to blame people who voted remain for brexit happening. Nice try but no one's falling for it. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the people who voted for it, then allowed it to proceed by voting tory in the next general election.

EdithBond · 02/05/2025 09:08

BownnTown · 02/05/2025 08:32

But why can’t our own homeless be put into these hotels? They’re clearly available - why are foreigners being prioritised?

Because (in 2000), the Labour government created a two-tier system for accommodating people who were destitute. Instead of people seeking asylum (who were destitute) being accommodated by the local council alongside everyone else, the Home Office became responsible for accommodating them via the National Asylum Support System.

NASS procured ‘dispersal’ accommodation in areas of the country where it was cheap. Places with few employment prospects, high crime, poor public transport and/or social deprivation (e.g. former industrial towns destroyed by Thatcher’s policies). Local people were already struggling and angry. Refugees were forced to go there.

Plus (in 2002), the government made it unlawful for people seeking asylum to work and for employers to employ them.

So, instead of being like everyone else, getting a job, paying tax and finding somewhere to live while awaiting their decision (which can take years), people seeking asylum used up any savings they’d arrived with and were left destitute in large numbers. And therefore dependent on the state.

I agree everyone in England who’s destitute should be entitled to accommodation. It’s inhumane and brutal for anyone to be street homeless in a very wealthy country like England. In most cases of street homelessness it’s because people (including many British people) have no rights to accommodation.

An increasing number are newly legally-recognised refugees, who’ve spent years in the asylum system awaiting a decision, unable to work or contribute (which they desperately want to do), then get their decision and are asked to leave asylum accommodation with short notice (28 days) and with no income or savings. It can take ages to get an NI number to get a job. They end up street homeless, which makes it even harder to get a job.

We need to allow people seeking asylum to work. End the two-tier system and give responsibility for accommodating everyone who’s homeless back to councils. And accommodate everyone by investing in decent, permanent council housing instead of selling it off. Otherwise, the Home Office will continue to compete with councils to procure temporary accommodation for both (i) people seeking asylum and (ii) British people (as well as foreign nationals with leave to remain in UK) who’re homeless.

Who benefits? The private ‘accommodation providers’ they procure it from, who are making millions. They sit back and watch the state outbid itself for the same limited pool of accommodation. Disaster capitalism. Crazy economics. Flawed political decisions to posture being ‘tough on immigration’. Taxpayers charged millions by private companies.

ComeAsYouAreAsAFriend · 02/05/2025 09:09

BownnTown · 02/05/2025 08:32

But why can’t our own homeless be put into these hotels? They’re clearly available - why are foreigners being prioritised?

Your own homeless are put into these hotels. It is emergency accommodation. If you are talking about the homeless you see on the street there are overnight homeless hostels etc. Generally single males/ females are not prioritised whether they are asylum seekers or British citizens so are often sleeping rough but of course there are a whole host of complex issues as to why people sleep rough and are homeless which has absolutely nothing to do with asylum seekers. It is ,mainly families that get housed in hotel emergency accommodation. When you say "foreigners" who are you referring to? International Protection Applicants? Migrant workers? who?

thepariscrimefiles · 02/05/2025 09:10

slamdunk66 · 02/05/2025 08:29

I don’t agree with Reform or what they stand for, but I can understand why people vote for them in today’s context. Labour are shit as were the Tories. People are protesting against this. I despise labours lack of courage and action in Gaza so am ok with any party that takes votes away from them.

As a lifelong Labour voter, I am so disappointed with this Labour government. I agree with you about their stance on Gaza, but I don't think that voting for right-wing, islamophobic, anti-immigrant candidates is the answer. All that will do is push Labour further to the right and they will increase their anti-immigration rhetoric in the vain hope of winning back these voters by out-Farageing Farage.

I think that the Muslim voters in the US who either abstained or voted for Trump as a protest against Biden's Israel/Gaza position have massively shot themselves in the foot. They have helped to elect a fascist government.

Zonder · 02/05/2025 09:12

Keirawr · 02/05/2025 06:41

Why are these people so predictable?

less than 1 page in and it’s like a bingo call card -

You’re illiterate
You AI
Reform cheated

Like I say, learned nothing from Brexit.

It seems that you expect everyone to agree with you? Interesting. Last I knew, we are still in a democracy and people are allowed to disagree with Farage.

Cleo65 · 02/05/2025 09:14

Sausagenbacon · 02/05/2025 06:25

Sorry to be old-fashioned, but 'reform winning big' is illiterate.

Anyway, yes, a good night for Reform, but the interesting thing will be to see how they perform. I'm doubtful that they have the experience to do well.

Considering the ones 'with experience' couldn't have made a worse job of Absolutely Everything - then maybe that's a good thing?

OneAmberFinch · 02/05/2025 09:14

JeremiahBullfrog · 02/05/2025 08:59

I would like to see low-skilled immigration reduced. I am not voting for a load of reactionary nutjobs with no policy on anything beyond "keep out foreigns!", and I am certainly not stupid enough to vote for them in local elections where their power to do anything to do with immigration is close to zero.

Reform-led councils aren't actually going to do any good for local transport or housing are they? I.e. the things they're actually there for. Let's make our local areas worse places to live in just to stick it to the immigrants, that makes perfect sense.

To be fair, the power for councils these days to even address their stated responsibilities is pretty much nil. A huge percentage of their budget goes on things they're mandated to do (social care, SEN transport, public sector pensions, schools grants that are passed directly down, etc). Aren't there a whole set of new councils about to go bust, regardless of who wins these elections?

UniqueNavyPlayer · 02/05/2025 09:15

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ComeAsYouAreAsAFriend · 02/05/2025 09:16

EdithBond · 02/05/2025 09:08

Because (in 2000), the Labour government created a two-tier system for accommodating people who were destitute. Instead of people seeking asylum (who were destitute) being accommodated by the local council alongside everyone else, the Home Office became responsible for accommodating them via the National Asylum Support System.

NASS procured ‘dispersal’ accommodation in areas of the country where it was cheap. Places with few employment prospects, high crime, poor public transport and/or social deprivation (e.g. former industrial towns destroyed by Thatcher’s policies). Local people were already struggling and angry. Refugees were forced to go there.

Plus (in 2002), the government made it unlawful for people seeking asylum to work and for employers to employ them.

So, instead of being like everyone else, getting a job, paying tax and finding somewhere to live while awaiting their decision (which can take years), people seeking asylum used up any savings they’d arrived with and were left destitute in large numbers. And therefore dependent on the state.

I agree everyone in England who’s destitute should be entitled to accommodation. It’s inhumane and brutal for anyone to be street homeless in a very wealthy country like England. In most cases of street homelessness it’s because people (including many British people) have no rights to accommodation.

An increasing number are newly legally-recognised refugees, who’ve spent years in the asylum system awaiting a decision, unable to work or contribute (which they desperately want to do), then get their decision and are asked to leave asylum accommodation with short notice (28 days) and with no income or savings. It can take ages to get an NI number to get a job. They end up street homeless, which makes it even harder to get a job.

We need to allow people seeking asylum to work. End the two-tier system and give responsibility for accommodating everyone who’s homeless back to councils. And accommodate everyone by investing in decent, permanent council housing instead of selling it off. Otherwise, the Home Office will continue to compete with councils to procure temporary accommodation for both (i) people seeking asylum and (ii) British people (as well as foreign nationals with leave to remain in UK) who’re homeless.

Who benefits? The private ‘accommodation providers’ they procure it from, who are making millions. They sit back and watch the state outbid itself for the same limited pool of accommodation. Disaster capitalism. Crazy economics. Flawed political decisions to posture being ‘tough on immigration’. Taxpayers charged millions by private companies.

Edited

We need to allow people asylum to work.
Yes agree with this, there will be certain scetors they cannot work in such as with children or the vulnerable because they cannot perform adequate background checks but plenty of other roles they can do

and give responsibility for accommodating everyone who’s homeless back to councils.
Not sure I agree with this one, it is centralised system because they have not yet been given leave to remain their applicants are being assessed and a majority will end up being sent back because their application for asylum has been denied so if they are dispersed in accommodation managed by different local authorities this may further complicate things. The asylum process needs to be speeded up massively so those that are not eligible get dealt with swiftly and sent home and those that are eligible can get processed and supported properly and granted leave to remain so they can get on with things and start working etc

rainingsnoring · 02/05/2025 09:17

Catsandcheese · 02/05/2025 08:52

I am not sure that Thatcher was all for society pulling together and supporting one another either lol, she decimated whole communities and those communities are still struggling today and maybe that is where the rot set in and has developed from.
The labour govt of 1998 onwards did an awful lot of good to right some of the wrongs by improving health, education etc, and now we have had 14 years of the tories creating the same mess all over again.
I am not surprised people are disillusioned and frankly these are dangerous times. This leaves people open to finding somebody to blame for their ills and even if they are constantly reminded that the sound bites are wrong, they won't listen. Every single topic nowadays is polarised with one side refusing to listen to the other.
I am reading here the so what Reform have no policy of for example social care for the elderly, because you have to pay for it if you have assets. So that means it is ok not to consider social care in your manifesto because people are paying for it anyway? Of course that's nonsense and we can see that because people just paying for it anyway is not making the situation better at all. The sector is failing because private companies are paying minimum wage for profit and charging more to private residents than they charge council funded residents. So yes this needs an overhaul, do we think Farage and his ilk have any clue how to do that?

You've totally misunderstood what I meant about Thatcher! I meant that she was a key figure in starting the rot with her 'there is no such thing as society' line. As you say, so many people don't care, don't listen and are just plain nasty to others. It's very sad.

I don't agree with you that New Labour really righted many wrongs. They were and are just another Neoliberal party, making the majority of workers poorer and making the elites richer. There has been a gradual, societal decline. It has, admittedly been far more visible following the GFC, under the 14 years of the Tory party.
I do agree with you that these are dangerous times and that we will see a lot of changes, many of which may be negative ones. It doesn't just involve the UK either.

Kreepture · 02/05/2025 09:17

Ah.. the turkeys are voting for Christmas again.

I hope none of those voters are women, Farage is notable a supporter of US Republican policy... kiss goodbye to women's reproductive rights if that lot get in.

No-one with a functioning brain or iota of intelligence should be touching that party with a barge pole.

Bloozie · 02/05/2025 09:18

They're taking votes from the Tories more than they are from Labour. Though yes, many protest votes against Labour.

The headline news from the results overnight is that the Conservative Party is on its arse.

rainingsnoring · 02/05/2025 09:18

LoremIpsumCici · 02/05/2025 09:07

Not just read and understand but be able to critically assess it as a list of impossible promises vs a plan that can actually be implemented.

Reform’s manifesto promised the moon and all the cheese on the moon. Only a lunatic would believe it could be implemented.

Edited

I agree with you but you've missed my point.
People who don't do this and can't do this still get the vote and they are not happy with the current state of things!

ComeAsYouAreAsAFriend · 02/05/2025 09:18

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

So black men and muslims are the problem?

PoppyFleur · 02/05/2025 09:18

thinktwice36 · 02/05/2025 07:32

I think this nails it - reform are now - rightly or wrongly - attracting the “silent majority”, the ones who feel they’ve worked hard all their life, and are getting penalised for owning an home, having to sell it for care home fees whilst those who never saved get exactly the same treatment and they can’t pass on their hard work to their families etc etc

I’m not saying this is right - but it is happening and these voters should be dismissed at your peril!

Will the silent majority benefit from Reform?

Tice has been very clear in his support for privatising the NHS, providing tax rebates for families that pay for private schooling. He has spoken of his desire to reduce unnecessary use of GPs by charging a fee for appointments. Will this benefit the silent majority?

As a higher rate taxpayer, married to a higher rate taxpayer, with just one child, I think we would be financially better off with Reform (not that we’d ever test that theory by voting for them). But our household income is not that of the ‘silent majority’. I don’t see how lower paid households will benefit from Reform, maybe I’m missing something.

Reform have mentioned raising personal allowance to £20k, which would be hugely beneficial to all workers, but as with all headlines, the devil is in the details and how this will be financed has not been forthcoming.

The reality is, Tice is financially astute and knows that the biggest cost to our economy, surpassing the NHS, is social benefits. Both he and Farage have been vocal, at fundraisers to high net worth attendees, that worker’s rights are a barrier to growth and that the country needs to get back to work - any form of work. I’m not sure the ‘silent majority’ quite appreciate how this will impact them.

UniqueNavyPlayer · 02/05/2025 09:19

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Another2Cats · 02/05/2025 09:19

Alexandra2001 · 02/05/2025 07:25

Labour have won 3 out of 4 mayoral elections.... we'll have to see about the council elections today.

A swing of 14% to Reform, on a turn out of 46%, isn't appalling either... its a by-election.

The Tories are the official opposition, for them to get just around 2000 votes in a by election? now that really is appalling.

"Labour have won 3 out of 4 mayoral elections."

There are still two more mayoral elections to declare. Labour are very likely to lose the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough election (they only narrowly won it last time). That seems more likely to go Conservative.

There is also the first ever mayoral election in Hull; it looks like that could go Reform.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.