Reform UK membership surpasses Tories, party says

[Nearly Sane]

Fuelled by a cheap deal for the under 25s

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/reform-uk-membership-surpasses-tories-party-says/ar-AA1ww48n

[jeremyp]

Ok. If the government is determined by the number of members, it’s a Labour government for the foreseeable future.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok. If the government is determined by the number of members, it’s a Labour government for the foreseeable future.

Indeed and tells us as much about the decline in the tories than a rise in reform.

And Badenoch has waded in claiming Reform's numbers aren't true - she really, really doesn't get politics, does she. All her intervention does is gives the story even more legs and legitimises/amplifies the notion that the tories are terrified of Reform and that they are neck and neck, rather than simply ignoring them - as the likes of Campbell (in Blair's day) or Ingham (in Thatcher's day) would have advised.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed and tells us as much about the decline in the tories than a rise in reform.

And Badenoch has waded in claiming Reform's numbers aren't true - she really, really doesn't get politics, does she. All her intervention does is gives the story even more legs and legitimises/amplifies the notion that the tories are terrified of Reform and that they are neck and neck, rather than simply ignoring them - as the likes of Campbell (in Blair's day) or Ingham (in Thatcher's day) would have advised.

Blair and Thatcher were always in considerably better positions than Badenoch. You're right though that the take from the Tory spokesman that Reform help Labour, and are irrelevant other than that is better than Badenoch's late Christmas gift to Farage. I think jokier would have worked better. Labour on the other hand just need to keep rolling up.their sleeves, working to deal with 14 years of Tory mismanagement to deal with distractions etc etc.


That said being a fast , and pretty well only, growing party is a worry all round. If current trends were to continue Reform would be the largest party before the next election.

[ProfessorDavey]

Blair and Thatcher were always in considerably better positions than Badenoch.

All situations are different, but Thatcher was 14 points adrift in the polling when she took over the tories and when Ingham became her press secretary in government she was also polling pretty badly after the 1979 election. The Blair situation is a bit different but, with Campbell, Blair built bigger and bigger leads. Both had the political nouse to advise their leaders not to respond as Badenoch did, I would be confident.

You're right though that the take from the Tory spokesman that Reform help Labour, and are irrelevant other than that is better than Badenoch's late Christmas gift to Farage. I think jokier would have worked better. Labour on the other hand just need to keep rolling up.their sleeves, working to deal with 14 years of Tory mismanagement to deal with distractions etc etc.

Still missing the point - the correct response (as I'm pretty sure Ingham and Campbell would have advised) would have been to completely ignore the Reform claim - not to make any comment at all. The item came out on Boxing Day - no-one (except sad politicos whose minds are made up anyway) are listening. Ignore the claim, do not respond and it slips away completely un-noticed by the vast majority of ordinary people.

Comment and the story gets legs and more people notice. Comment as Badenoch did and it is mana from heaven for Reform as they get recognition/legitimisation from the tories that they are neck and neck (in one aspect) and also the ability to challenge the tories to prove the Reform numbers are wrong (which Tice did yesterday) and attack the tories for the shambles that their membership details are (which is well known as they are kept at local, rather than national level). Just win, win, win for Reform and deeply stupid from Badenoch as it turned a win (which most people wouldn't have even noticed) into a win, win, win.

[ProfessorDavey]

That said being a fast , and pretty well only, growing party is a worry all round. If current trends were to continue Reform would be the largest party before the next election.

If doing some pretty heavy lifting there NS. Reform numbers would need to triple to overtake current Labour membership (which is itself down on a few years ago).

But so what - elections aren't won on numbers of members - indeed they are a very poor indicator of electoral success. Corbyn's Labour party had far more members than any other party (probably than all the others put together), yet lost two elections. The SNP had the most members in the 2024 GE in Scotland yet got trounced. Membership stats mean very little.

[Nearly Sane]

And according to the ticker now passed 150k

[Aruntraveller]

I have to say Prof D I find your complacency about Reform slightly puzzling.

It is almost as if you think the UK is exceptional in some way, rather like Johnson thought with his attitude to Covid. Have you not been paying attention to the politics in Germany, France, the USA,  and the Netherlands to name but a few?

Do you think we are somehow immune from this surge in right-wing populism?

[ProfessorDavey]

I have to say Prof D I find your complacency about Reform slightly puzzling.

It is almost as if you think the UK is exceptional in some way, rather like Johnson thought with his attitude to Covid. Have you not been paying attention to the politics in Germany, France, the USA,  and the Netherlands to name but a few?

Do you think we are somehow immune from this surge in right-wing populism?

I don't think complacency comes into it. My point was that membership of political parties isn't a good indicator of electoral success - as the failure of Corbyn's Labour to win in 2017 and 2019 (when they probably had at least double membership of the tories) and the SNP in 2024. So Reform having more members than the tories (and way less than labour) doesn't really tell us much about their ability to win elections.

But you mention right wing populism - well I would say that currently we are at lower risk of a right wing populist government than we have been at any time in the last approx. 10 years. Why? Well because we have a left of centre government with a massive majority so it will be 2028/9 before there will be any opportunity for a different government to take power - a huge amount can change between now and then - the global popularity for right wing populism may well be on the wane and Reform/Farage could well have diminished themselves as a force.

And another reason why currently we at the lowest risk of a right wing populist government than we have been at any time in the last approx. 10 years. Well, we have had a right wing populist government for most of that period and disastrous it has been - starting with Cameron appeasing UKIP by promising a brexit referendum (a totally unnecessary pledge) through the complete obsession (and grid-lock) of government through the May and Johnson eras with achieving the hardest possible brexit (even if it broke the law (e.g. prorogue parliament etc), through Truss' budget and finally Sunak's complete obsession with the right wing populist hugely expensive failure that was the Rwanda policy.

So rather than being at risk of a right wing populist government, Starmer's stonking majority was the rejection by the electorate of the right wing populist policies that had been foisted on the UK for years.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think complacency comes into it. My point was that membership of political parties isn't a good indicator of electoral success - as the failure of Corbyn's Labour to win in 2017 and 2019 (when they probably had at least double membership of the tories) and the SNP in 2024. So Reform having more members than the tories (and way less than labour) doesn't really tell us much about their ability to win elections.

But you mention right wing populism - well I would say that currently we are at lower risk of a right wing populist government than we have been at any time in the last approx. 10 years. Why? Well because we have a left of centre government with a massive majority so it will be 2028/9 before there will be any opportunity for a different government to take power - a huge amount can change between now and then - the global popularity for right wing populism may well be on the wane and Reform/Farage could well have diminished themselves as a force.

And another reason why currently we at the lowest risk of a right wing populist government than we have been at any time in the last approx. 10 years. Well, we have had a right wing populist government for most of that period and disastrous it has been - starting with Cameron appeasing UKIP by promising a brexit referendum (a totally unnecessary pledge) through the complete obsession (and grid-lock) of government through the May and Johnson eras with achieving the hardest possible brexit (even if it broke the law (e.g. prorogue parliament etc), through Truss' budget and finally Sunak's complete obsession with the right wing populist hugely expensive failure that was the Rwanda policy.

So rather than being at risk of a right wing populist government, Starmer's stinking majority was the rejection by the electorate of the right wing populist policies that had been foisted on the UK for years.

No, it's was a quirk of a fucked up electoral system.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, it's was a quirk of a fucked up electoral system.

The scale of the defeat may was certainly amplified by our FPTP system, but it is stretching reality to incredulity to suggest that the tories lost simply because of out electoral system, rather than as a rejection of their right wing populist government.

One of the most interesting aspects of the 2024 GE is just how effectively voters worked the FPTP system to give the tories the most incredible kicking. The 'unofficial' tactical voting, particularly between Labour and the LibDems is absolutely clear, with Labour vote share dropping like a stone once constituencies were reached where the LibDems were better placed to kick out the tories and vice versa. This was an election where voters voted in the most effective manner to get rid of the tories.

So unless you are arguing that the party of the brexit referendum, pushing on us the hardest of hard brexits, proroguing parliament, threatening to break the law (and actually breaking the law) to push through right wing policies, corruption and cronyism, Rwanda, threatening to leave the ECHR, borrowing to fund tax cuts, demonising immigrants etc etc wasn't a right wing populist government, then you have to conclude that the 2024 election was all about the electorate rejecting (and kicking out) a right wing populist government.

[Nearly Sane]

The scale of the defeat may was certainly amplified by our FPTP system, but it is stretching reality to incredulity to suggest that the tories lost simply because of out electoral system, rather than as a rejection of their right wing populist government.

One of the most interesting aspects of the 2024 GE is just how effectively voters worked the FPTP system to give the tories the most incredible kicking. The 'unofficial' tactical voting, particularly between Labour and the LibDems is absolutely clear, with Labour vote share dropping like a stone once constituencies were reached where the LibDems were better placed to kick out the tories and vice versa. This was an election where voters voted in the most effective manner to get rid of the tories.

So unless you are arguing that the party of the brexit referendum, pushing on us the hardest of hard brexits, proroguing parliament, threatening to break the law (and actually breaking the law) to push through right wing policies, corruption and cronyism, Rwanda, threatening to leave the ECHR, borrowing to fund tax cuts, demonising immigrants etc etc wasn't a right wing populist government, then you have to conclude that the 2024 election was all about the electorate rejecting (and kicking out) a right wing populist government.

I didn't say the Tories lost because of the electoral system. But Starmer's stinking majority on 34% of those who voted is down to a stinking electoral system that you think is fucked up.

[ProfessorDavey]

But Starmer's stinking majority on 34% of those who voted ...

Stinking majority or stonking majority

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't say the Tories lost because of the electoral system. But Starmer's stinking majority on 34% of those who voted is down to a stinking electoral system that you think is fucked up.

I'm no fan of our current electoral system - I think I've made that pretty clear in the past.

But that isn't really relevant to my point - I'd be pretty confident that whatever electoral system was in place in July that the electorate would have done everything they could to kick out the tories, as they were sick and tired of the right wing populism we've had since 2015, which ramped up several notches from when Boris took over.

Of course had the electoral system been different we might not have had right wing populism over the past near decade, but that is another matter.

So my point is that the UK isn't at risk of a right wing populist government any time soon as we've had one for years and the electorate have recently chosen to throw them out (and I'd argue would have done so under any electoral system). And there is no chance that we will get another one until at least 2028 and by then many, many things may have changed, notably Farage may have got bored of UK politics yet again and flounced off.

Another point to note is that the current set of elections don't actually favour Reform. Under previous iterations they did very well in UK-wide EU elections, but these don't exist any more. They've never done well in local elections, because they work on the basis of national, rather than local on-the-ground campaigning. There may be the odd by-election but other than that they'll struggle to find an opportunity to make any sort of 'electoral' breakthrough until the next GE.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm no fan of our current electoral system - I think I've made that pretty clear in the past.

But that isn't really relevant to my point - I'd be pretty confident that whatever electoral system was in place in July that the electorate would have done everything they could to kick out the tories, as they were sick and tired of the right wing populism we've had since 2015, which ramped up several notches from when Boris took over.

Of course had the electoral system been different we might not have had right wing populism over the past near decade, but that is another matter.

So my point is that the UK isn't at risk of a right wing populist government any time soon as we've had one for years and the electorate have recently chosen to throw them out (and I'd argue would have done so under any electoral system). And there is no chance that we will get another one until at least 2028 and by then many, many things may have changed, notably Farage may have got bored of UK politics yet again and flounced off.

Another point to note is that the current set of elections don't actually favour Reform. Under previous iterations they did very well in UK-wide EU elections, but these don't exist any more. They've never done well in local elections, because they work on the basis of national, rather than local on-the-ground campaigning. There may be the odd by-election but other than that they'll struggle to find an opportunity to make any sort of 'electoral' breakthrough until the next GE.

Which is a lot of words ignoring you're claim that the stinking majority only caused by a  electoral system which you think is wrong meant a rejection of the right wing. Given you think the results are unfair then making an conclusion like that from the size of the majority is specious.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which is a lot of words ignoring you're claim that the stinking majority only caused by a  electoral system which you think is wrong meant a rejection of the right wing. Given you think the results are unfair then making an conclusion like that from the size of the majority is specious.

New Year but same old tedious NS pointless nit-picking.

The point is that the 2024 election saw the Tories sink to historic lows under FPTP (which resulted in a stocking majority for Labour). Had the election been held under a different method then I've little doubt that the tories would still have sunk to historical lows compared to previous elections had they been fought under those same rules. The nature of the electoral system has little bearing on that fact that in 2024 the electorate were thoroughly sick of the right wing populism they had endured over the past few years (particularly since Boris became PM, but to an extent before that too). And as they were thoroughly sick of the tories they gave them a damn good kicking, like nothing a governing party had suffered in living memory. They (obviously) could only do that under the FPTP system (as that was the system in place), but under any other system they'd have still given them a damned good kicking (as you apparently acknowledged previously).

So stop wittering on about the electoral system and focus on the actual point I am making - that the electorate were sick of right wing populism and gave that government a darned good kicking at the ballot box.

[Nearly Sane]

New Year but same old tedious NS pointless nit-picking.

The point is that the 2024 election saw the Tories sink to historic lows under FPTP (which resulted in a stocking majority for Labour). Had the election been held under a different method then I've little doubt that the tories would still have sunk to historical lows compared to previous elections had they been fought under those same rules. The nature of the electoral system has little bearing on that fact that in 2024 the electorate were thoroughly sick of the right wing populism they had endured over the past few years (particularly since Boris became PM, but to an extent before that too). And as they were thoroughly sick of the tories they gave them a damn good kicking, like nothing a governing party had suffered in living memory. They (obviously) could only do that under the FPTP system (as that was the system in place), but under any other system they'd have still given them a damned good kicking (as you apparently acknowledged previously).

So stop wittering on about the electoral system and focus on the actual point I am making - that the electorate were sick of right wing populism and gave that government a darned good kicking at the ballot box.

I picked you up on a claim you made about the meaning of the election. If you don't want to defend that point, just say so.

[ProfessorDavey]

I picked you up on a claim you made about the meaning of the election.

Which was the 'rejection by the electorate of the right wing populist policies that had been foisted on the UK for years [by the tory government]' - see reply 8.

If you don't want to defend that point, just say so.

Do you even bother to read my posts. All my subsequent posts (with the exception of reply 12, which acknowledged a rather funny autocorrect) also focus on the point I was making - that the key feature of the 2024 election was a defeat of historic proportions of the tory government and by inference, of their right wing populist policies.

But rather than actually debate the point I was making in reply 8, and continued in replies 10, 13 and 15, you chose to derail the discussion into one about the electoral system. You seem to have accepted that the tories would have been pummelled under a different electoral system in reply 11, so the nature of the electoral system is irrelevant to the point I was making.

To focus your mind on voteshare (which is less about the electoral system itself), rather than seats - the tories voteshare of 23% was their worst of all time, since the current tories emerged in 1835. It was the worst by either labour or the tories since labour became a serious electoral force in 1922. It was arguably the worst defeat by an incumbent government since the Liberals were obliterated as an electoral force in 1918 (but that doesn't really count as the governing party had split in two).

[ProfessorDavey]

And as I have already pointed out, I haven't said anything disagreeing with the Tories losing hugely badly, just that you can't use a huge majority as a justification of what was being rejected since that's to do with the electoral system giving 34% of the vote a huge majority.

But under our current electoral system, one of the main parties gaining just 23% of the vote is almost certain to result in a stonking majority for another party (in this case labour). But under any other system a collapse of vote share from 43% to 23% would still be a defeat of historic proportions and a massive rejection of that party and their policy positions. Perhaps it would result in seats being spread more evenly across the other parties (if pure PR), or producing an even larger majority (perhaps under AV), but those points are irrelevant.

The point I was making, and you seem unwilling to address, was that 2024 saw a massive rejection of the tories (of historic proportions) - that seems beyond any credible alternative argument. And secondly, in my opinion, that was a rejection of their right wing populist approach. Now we can debate whether they were right wing populists, or whether their rejection was due to something else rather than their overall policy positions. Others may argue differently.

But you cannot seriously argue that the key takehome of 2024 was not the rejection by the electorate of the tories - and arguing about the electoral system is irrelevant to that key takehome.