Talk:Reform UK

The Elections section really needs some work. Every other UK political party has an Election Results section that just displays tables of the results. This page has the 2024 table buried under 3 paragraphs of text. It should be in the same place as the 2019 table. And it should indicate an increase in vote share, etc. Look at any UK political party, and indeed most European political party wikipedia pages and get this one up to that standard. Thank you. 2600:1700:8C30:1350:F4DC:E0B1:EFEA:B306 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reform UK is mentioned as being "unusual" for a political party, but when I read the wiki article on political parties I couldn't see how the structure differs. The FT times is behind a paywall/registration; is that a suitable source? The Guardian just repeats the party has unusual structure, without explaining why.Halbared (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We use paywalled sources, and for some reason I was able to read it anyway. I can't now. The Guardian says "Farage owns a majority of shares in Reform UK Party Ltd, which is registered with Companies House." Our general article on political parties is irrelevant. There are no political groups in the UK owned by shareholders other than this one that I know of, certainly none with MPs. There are of course other sources stating the same thing, also stating who owns the other shares. Also note that Farage is quoted in the article: "He saw the Brexit Party doing the same kind of thing and "running a company, not a political party, hence our model of registered supporters" " Reform is just the new name for the Brexit Party. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the response. Paywalled sources are not very good if they can't be accessed, and the Guardian didn't answer my question, though you did here, thank you for that. I found a good source as to why Reform is different from other parties. Prominence is given to Reform being a limited company which raised my pondering on how other parties are 'set-up.' I wanted to know the structure of how a political party should work, which I expected to find on the political party page, which is why I mentioned it. I found a rather good source anyway on what makes Reform unusual from the other, older parties. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-uk-nigel-farage-election-b2556355.html.Halbared (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good source. I could find the quote "Mr Farage claimed Reform UK would “democratise over time” after he was accused of running a “one-man dictatorship” by broadcasters." Also here[1] which is interesting as he says their constatation (which is where?) allows 2/3rd of the membership to kick him out. Note that he stonewalls on whether the company sill stay. See also [2] and [3]. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m putting up here because although another editor saw fit to exclude this information from the lede, with the edit summary "Major British political parties have companies associated with them. Take it to the talk-page." it has just been plonked into para. 1 of the lede. I have reverted that edit for the following reasons. Even if it is established that this information should be included in the lede, it should not be prioritised above all the other information therein, which is what the latest edit did. Is the fact that it is a limited company more important than the facts that it is a political party, which has innumerable policies, which gained 14% of the vote at the general election? Of course not. Boscaswell talk 20:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Boscaswell But it is. No other political party is controlled by shareholders. And are you suggesting that there is a party membership that can elect the party leader and help set its policies. As an aside, paywalled sources are fine. And there are others. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Having a company associated with a party is in no way equivalent with a party being a limited company, how can you possibly think it is? Doug Weller talk 20:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, any source that is reliable and in the public domain is acceptable. Including a hardback book that costs £25 to buy. Although, as it happens, you can usually access FT content for free by googling the article title and using an alternative source. On the topic, so long as Farage is in sole charge of everything his ‘party’ does, including its name, branding, leader, candidate selection and policies, it is significantly different from other parties, which have democratic structures (of course, one can argue about the extent to which they are democratic in practice - cf. the power Starmer has accumulated over his party, in practice, despite its internal democracy). It will be interesting to see whether, now it has a group of MPs, there will be pressure on its one-man decision-making model; it was such pressure within UKIP that led Farage to walk away from it. MapReader (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@MapReader@Halbared@Boscaswell See Talk:Nigel Farage where this information is being called a BLP violation despite the tact that everyone of their websites clearly states "Promoted by Paul Oakden - Copyright © 2024 Reform UK Party Limited

Company number 11694875 | Registered in England & Wales". Plus a multitude of sources. Doug Weller talk 07:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is already a long article, is there any point in having the old platform in the article? Doug Weller talk 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why would we not have it? Information is not removed simply because it's old. See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Keeper of Albion (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don’t see what it adds to the article. And the longer the article the less likely people will keep reading it. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The 2019 platform is just a few bullet points - it’s easy to scan and pass over. Readers are going to skip certain sections anyway, aren’t they? Boscaswell talk 20:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the article for the third-most-voted-for political party in a country that once ruled the world. It's a fair assumption that there will be readers who are interested in its platform from 2019. Those who are not will likely opt not to read that section. Keeper of Albion (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That was on 5 July. What conference and what constitution? An old one is discussed in the archives with some news sources and I presume that one is still the legal one. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Presumably this - the Articles of Association of the company. In the Indie article referenced in the Limited company discussion above, it says "Mr Farage claimed Reform UK would “democratise over time” after he was accused of running a “one-man dictatorship” by broadcasters." Perhaps the two statements are in alignment. Boscaswell talk 20:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

If that link to the Articles of Association doesn’t work, click on the pdf from here. It’s about half way down, "Resolution of Adoption of Articles of Assication", 7 pages. Boscaswell talk 21:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I think the article really needs a bit of a rewrite the funding and party structure, which is at least unusual if not unique, which I think it is in the UK. I'd suggest breaking that into two sections for easier reading. We would need to include the new sources such as this which mentions Habib.

The present section also starts a bit abruptly I think and the first sentence could be rewritten, eg "When the Brexit party was created/formed it was limited company" because as it stands it says it only had three members and then says it decided to have no members, which makes no sense if you know nothing about it.

I think that the first sentence should say "and limited company" - it's succinct and accurate and follows our NPOV policy.

Even with that, the lead needs to say more about its structure, as it doesn't follow our guideline at WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Another source:[4]. By the way, Bylinetimes is not a good source.

Thinking about the lead a bit more, although I think structure and finances should be separate sections, summarizing them together in one para for the lead should work. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’ll have a go at a re-write of that section soon. I've been busy with other stuff… Boscaswell talk 07:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I know busy. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The University of Birmingham describes the Reform party as a 'far-right' party here: [5]https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2024/general-election-2024-the-results-in-10-key-graphs, and compares it with UKIP, which was also led by Nigel Farage (at the 2015 general election), which Wikipedia also described as a 'far-right' party: .

The Conservative Party has also been described as 'Right-wing' Conservative Party (UK), and I think most British voters would not say these 2 parties both occupied the same political position. Reform has shifted it's position further to the right at the 2024 election, particularly on issues such as immigration, asylum seekers and taxation [6]https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1718625371/Reform_UK_Our_Contract_with_You.pdf?1718625371. 80.43.59.80 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

and compares it with UKIP, which was also led by Nigel Farage (at the 2015 general election), which Wikipedia has also described as a 'far-right' party

Worth pointing out that we didn't list UKIP as far-right under Farage. It shifted to the far-right after he left.

The Conservative Party has also been described as 'Right-wing' Actually "centre-right to right-wing", separate to Reform simply being right-wing, establishing they're not in the same position. — Czello ^(music) 20:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is tricky.

Reform UK certainly had its fair share of far-right, racist candidates during the General Election campaign. But the party did drop support for these candidates before the polls opened.

The question, perhaps, is whether the party’s political position should represent the views of all its members or whether it should represent the views of its MPs and councillors.

If the former, I think labelling the party as “right wing to far-right” would be the most logical conclusion. If the later, I think the page should be left as is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c727xz2kkgjo.amp DWMemories (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was just thinking the same thing.

Reform has at different times, given the impression of being either a right wing party, or a far-right party. So, perhaps the description should reflect that? 80.43.59.80 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

but surely if it has some, but not all, racist candidates and supporters that would make it "right wing to far right" wouldn't it? It's a very mixed party with some candidates more economically right wing than others and some more authoritarian candidates so just having "right wing" doesn't make sense to me LukeTheIncredibleFluke (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m agreed with this. A party’s political position is not the same as the political position of its leader. The Labour Party remained a “centre-left” party even under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership (despite him being more left wing). I’d support Reform UK being labelled a “right wing to far-right” party.

It’s also worth pointing out Farage’s political position is hard to define. He’s stated he wants to lead a “centre-right” party but it is clear Reform UK is NOT centre-right. Farage seems to believe the Conservatives have shifted further to the left in the last decade, which is certainly not the opinion of academics. I think we have to recognise the party has different factions with some leaning into far-right territory. DWMemories (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nigel Farage and Richard Tice have at times, labelled the Conservative Party as socialists.

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-is-not-a-conservative-but-a-socialist-claims-reforms-richard-tice-13120054

The implication is that the leaders of Reform consider the Conservatives to be a relatively left wing party. 80.43.59.80 (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that confirms my position on this. Labelling Reform UK as merely “right wing” neither reflects the views of its members or of its MPs.

If the party’s leaders both see the Conservatives as relatively left wing, I think that all but confirms their views lean towards the far-right.

Let’s not forget that UKIP under Farage’s leadership was part of the EFDD alliance in the European Parliament (a group which Wikipedia labels as “right wing to far-right”) DWMemories (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't know how it works. If we have a source, then surely we are allowed update the political position? Or does it need to be authorised by someone else? LukeTheIncredibleFluke (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Two points. Sources need to meet WP:RS which you need to read.Also see WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, that’s evidence they don’t know what socialism is. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’d argue it’s evidence for both.

They’re not calling the Conservatives socialists because they’re politically similar to them. They’re doing it to show they’re further to the right. If they genuinely are this much further right than the Conservatives (and this is a big if), then I have to assume they are right-wing to far-right (as the Conservatives are actually centre-right to right-wing). DWMemories (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Economically, Reform appears to be more to the left than the Conservatives – e.g., Reform demands the nationalisation of key branches of economy, which in itself is quite leftist (too leftist for the US for instance). They are socially to the right, sometimes bordering far right when identities are discussed. But this is the song of the times across Europe: far-right social narrative and chauvinism combined with progressive economic policies. The left-right distinction is definitely unable to capture the current political spectrum. Do we insist on having it? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

But we go by what the sources say, your analysis is original. Research. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’d suggest those supporting a change should try to find some academic sources that label the party “far-right”.

We can then discuss the credibility of these sources.

Here are some I’d like to add:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%E2%80%9Creform+uk%E2%80%9D+%E2%80%9Cfar%E2%80%9D+right&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&t=1722459664042&u=%23p%3DnhogPPD0MxkJ (names Reform UK a “radical right” party. Wikipedia’s own page on the Radical Right in Europe says it is a term used to describe right-wing to far-right movements. Worth noting far more sources seem happy to label the party as “radically right” compared to “far right” because the term accounts for different factions).

https://transform-network.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/the_far-right_in_the_ep.pdf (discusses the Brexit Party as part of a larger group of far-right parties in Europe. Acknowledges the party’s name was changed).

https://www.asjp.cerist.dz/en/downArticle/473/8/1/250066 (talks mostly about the BNP and UKIP, though does mention Reform UK - probably not all that helpful). DWMemories (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

For me at least, this (along with the first source provided in the OP) is ample evidence to support a change. But if anyone has anything to dispute then please do. DWMemories (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would agree with listing the party as Right-wing to far-right. There are factions of both, with many candidates sharing far-right and racist views, some dropped, some not. Additionally, certain MPs of Reform UK have recently sympathised and spread far-right conspiracies and views on social media. Furthermore, there's a huge proportion of documented Reform supporters who have shared far-right views. There are notable far-right factions of all sections of the party, so right-wing to far-right seems appropriate. Sizewell (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Referring to Reform as populist right seems the best descriptor at the moment. Politico.eu and theweek.com use 'populist right,' you gov says 'culturally right.' This is an interesting article explaining why 'far-right' is wrong.https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/its-a-mistake-to-call-reform-uk-far-right/ The BBC said: “In an article about the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference we wrongly described the political party Reform UK as far right when referring to polling. This sentence was subsequently removed from the article as it fell short of our usual editorial standards. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/19/bbc-apologises-for-calling-reform-uk-far-right.Halbared (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the previous comment, the unsigned one. "Populist right" sounds correct to me. There is a problem with the term "far right" in that the moment it is used it enables the left and far left to call whoever is labelled with it Nazi. Reform UK is far from that. Then there are those on the left and far left who like to label populist right wing parties as far right for that very reason, so that they have a hammer to hit their enemy with, and it’s possible nowadays that some academics will want to do this.
This whole area is highly contentious, and for that reason alone I feel that we need not just an RS or two but absolutely unimpeachable RS's. If we have the BBC saying it was (and is) wrong to call Reform UK far right, then that's pretty solid, isn’t it? Bear in mind also that Farage and Tice threw out candidates who had clear far right opinions, and Farage himself has shown a strong determination to avoid the far right label. If we were to go ahead and describe them as far right despite all of that, it would be a "what the…" moment, IMO. "Populist right" feels correct to me. Boscaswell talk 09:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although "populist right" wouldn't go into the position field, it'd go into the ideology field (where it already is) — Czello ^(music) 09:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia labels the Conservative Party as “centre-right to right-wing” for a reason. There are factions within political parties.

Perhaps the question should be whether Reform UK are more right-wing than the most right-wing members of the Conservative Party. Are there members of Reform UK who are further right than the likes of Suella Braverman?

I’d argue there are, hence the previous sources I’ve provided (which have not been dissected).

“Far-right” on its own would CLEARLY be wrong. Reform UK are NOT on the same politically position as France’s National Rally and this is why the BBC corrected their comments. But after Channel 4’s investigation and the racist comments made by candidates, I think there’s enough to say there’s a large enough following within Reform UK that do sit on the far-right spectrum. DWMemories (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’d also suggest Wikipedia shouldn’t exclude information which *could* be misused by extremists (you’re talking about the far-left here). It should go on academic opinion. DWMemories (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do most of us here agree that for a lack of a better term, Reform UK is a very right wing political party? E.g. not simply 'Right-Wing'.

And that the Conservative Party is more of a Centre right to Right wing party? 80.43.59.80 (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, though I’d say “right-wing to far-right” covers their position. They’re more than simply right. DWMemories (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply