How Reform capitalised on a vacuum created by two out-of-touch parties
As the dust settles on the local election results, James Crouch unpacks the polling to explain Reform’s sweeping gains
Last week’s local elections were nothing short of remarkable, and not just because of who won, but what that win says about the current state of British politics. Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, topped the polls across many English councils. With a projected national vote share of around 30%, and the lion’s share of the council seats up for grabs, this has led us to ask all sorts of questions but the key one is: why?
First, let’s acknowledge the obvious: Reform UK’s policy platform is not attractive across the board, but it has cut through. On immigration – the issue it most consistently champions – the party leads. In fact, when tracking trust across 12 local policy areas, managing the impact of immigration locally is the only one where Reform has a clear advantage. Some 19% of voters trust Reform most on this issue, compared to 12% for Labour and just 10% for the Conservatives. That said, a striking 27% of voters still say they trust none of the parties on immigration, revealing a level of despondency with politics that even Reform cannot answer.
Still, immigration alone does not explain Reform’s surge. This was a local election, and a single issue should not yield such sweeping gains, especially when all the evidence suggests there are other key challenges in the mix that even Reform doesn’t have the answer to. The better explanation lies in the reputational collapse of the two main parties – and the vacuum that has created.
Reform is benefiting not just from what it stands for, but from how it stands apart. When asked whether parties have a clear sense of purpose, Reform’s net score is +5%, compared to -17% for Labour and -20% for the Conservatives. On “knowing what they stand for,” Reform again leads (a net score of +10%), while Labour and the Tories languish at -16% and -12%, respectively.
This credibility gap is even wider at the leadership level. Farage scores significantly better than Keir Starmer or Kemi Badenoch on being a “strong leader” (-1% vs. -23% and -17%, respectively) and on “being in touch with ordinary people” (-8% vs. -39% for Starmer and -24% for Badenoch).
In the end, it’s this “out of touch” perception that tells the story. Labour and the Conservatives have lost connection with the electorate: Labour with a net score of -23 points, the Conservatives with a staggering net score of -35. Reform’s figure, by contrast, is just net -6. When mainstream parties feel distant and discredited, voters look for someone – anyone – who sounds like they might understand them better. Farage, whatever else he may be, fits that bill.
Reform’s success isn’t just about policy. It’s about presence, clarity, and resonance in a political vacuum. The major parties do not just need policy answers to counter this; they need to reconnect with voters.
As seen in Lansons-Opinium Political Capital.
Immigration is important, as is the lack of charisma among the conventional political class. But Britain, like most countries, was far more racist 70 years ago, when the two “main” parties were riding high. But since the 1980’s - arguably since the 1970’s - British society has grown more and more competitive: in the provision of housing, for example. Racism is much more dangerous when everyone is competing against everybody else. Start a conversation with any passer-by who is in housing stress - high rent, cramped conditions, etc - and you won’t have to wait long until they mention immigration.