British Voters Lash Out

Authored by Jake Scott via The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),

In the United Kingdom, a mini political earthquake has thrown everything up into the air.

At the beginning of May, several local councils held elections for the county, allowing voters a say in how their local services are managed—bin collection, potholes being filled in, local development plans, etc.

These elections are not, therefore, the most decisive electoral events of the calendar. But politically, they can be used to send a message, and that is certainly what happened this time.

Often seen as a chance for voters to express their discontent, local elections can be taken as a test of the current government’s performance, and this is one they definitively failed. Reform UK, the populist-right party led by Nigel Farage, won 677 wards out of 1,632, and took control of ten county councils, including County Durham, a Labour stronghold for 100 years.

Because of their political relevance, but limited national impact, local elections that go against the government can often be hand-waved as protest votes, expressing general discontent with the status quo. On this occasion, doing so would be a serious mistake, for two reasons.

First, the Labour Party, as the current government, did not expect to do well due to the country’s broad dissatisfaction with the economy, high levels of immigration, and climbing costs of living. But it was the Conservatives who suffered the most, having previously held more councils before the elections, and the electorate still has not “forgiven them” since they were voted out in the national elections of July 2024. Indeed, they were the real losers of this round, losing about the same number of wards as Reform gained.

Second, the victories of Reform in the locals, especially in the Midlands and the North East, track with consistent regional patterns that suggest this is truly not a flash in the pan. As I have been pointing out for a while now, Reform’s core areas of support seem to be in the Midlands, North East, and East Anglia, though they are also now breaking through in Kent. Indeed, Reform also won the byelection in Runcorn by six votes, coming from a standing start to take a Labour stronghold.

Meanwhile, YouGov’s first poll after the locals put Reform in the lead on 29 percent, a full 7 percent points ahead of Labour in second place. A national bump after a successful performance in the local elections is to be expected, but this is a serious shift, if it materializes. It may be the case that people who support Reform, but won’t say so publicly out of fear of being judged for it—the “Shy Reformers”—are now emboldened by the success of the party, and no longer shy about supporting them. A similar phenomenon occurred in 2015, when the Conservatives won a majority despite the polls suggesting otherwise.

Reform’s support comes largely from its opposition to mass migration, with leader Farage declaring in April that a Reform government would create a “Minister for Deportations” in the Home Office—which is about the only real concrete policy that the party has put forward. But in this proposal, and in response to the local victories, we can discern Reform’s economic agenda, and it’s one not far from President Trump’s.

In relation to the “Deportations Minister,” Farage stated that “we will need to recruit new people, as the evidence at the moment suggests those who work in the Home Office would willfully obstruct policy if we won the next general election.”

Such comments are reminiscent of Trump’s rhetoric regarding the Deep State, the fear that an obstructive civil service will sabotage any real measures being implemented. Often disregarded as a “conspiracy theory,” there is nevertheless a perception that the “will of the people” is obstructed by independent and unelected officials with their own agendas, contrary to the electorally victorious.

Coming from Farage, it indicates a distrust of the established civil service, and a desire either to strip it back, or to dislodge and replace any servants who are not “on-side.” This would suggest a preference for a minimalist state, but one that is still active in key policy areas.

Such a stance seems to be confirmed by Chairman Zia Yusuf’s statements following the local elections on what Reform plans to do in each council. Talking to the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, Yusuf said that Reform “will cut waste” principally by sending “teams in, taskforces; we will be opening up applications soon.” In a move reminiscent of DOGE’s strategy, of sending small teams into each agency and demanding audits, Reform is clearly hoping to bring public spending under control. Meanwhile, Dame Andrea Jenkyns—formerly of the Conservative Party, and now Reform Mayor for Lincolnshire—has set the goal of cutting departments by 10 percent.

Economically then, Reform’s government strategy seems attractive, and this may well bear fruit at the national level, but the obstacle at the local level is remarkably simple: it doesn’t have that much autonomy.

As I say above, councils are not that significant, but where their spending is directed is pretty tightly controlled. For example, as much as 60 percent of local councils’ budgets are dedicated to social care, a statutory obligation determined by the central government in Westminster, so other services must be the first to be cut. And since these are the issues that residents notice daily—road maintenance, bin collection, bus services, etc.—it can be electorally difficult to cut those without losing support.

Reform’s strategy might, therefore, be a necessary one, but the capacity to implement it at the local level is likely to be a struggle, and one that they may not succeed in.