Reform UK Harpenden & Berkhamsted

23/05/2026

𝑨𝑵𝑫𝒀 𝑩𝑼𝑹𝑵𝑯𝑨𝑴’𝑺 𝑪𝑨𝑹𝑬𝑬𝑹 (1)
Almost all of Andy Burnham’s career has been in politics, barring an undistinguished stint as a journalist. There is no “real world” career suggesting he has the expertise to run the country; as opposed to a successful career in politics. His experience in senior roles in government is also limited; his only cabinet rank post being Secretary of State for Health for about a year between June 2009 to May 2010.

𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝟏𝟗𝟖𝟏 - 𝟏𝟗𝟖𝟓)
Burnham went to Cambridge University and obtained a degree in English.

𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐉𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 (𝟏𝟗𝟖𝟔 - 𝟏𝟗𝟗𝟎)
Andy initially got a job as an unpaid intern on the Manchester Guardian, before getting paid positions at limited circulation trade magazines such as “Container Management” and “Passenger Rail Management” in London.

𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐟𝐟 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 (𝟏𝟗𝟗𝟏 – 𝟏𝟗𝟗𝟕)
Burnham, a Labour party member since the age of 15, then had several positions as an employee of the Labour party. These included working as a researcher for Tessa Jowell, as a parliamentary officer for the NHS Confederation and as an administrator with the Football Task Force, a Labour Quango advising on reform of the football Association (FA).

𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐫 (𝐒𝐩𝐀𝐝) 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬 𝐒𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐌𝐏 (𝟏𝟗𝟗𝟖 – 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟎)
This followed on from Burnham’s work on the Football Task Force, Chris Smith then being Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

𝐌𝐏 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐋𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 (𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟏 – 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟕)
Burnham was elected to the safe seat of Leigh in 2001, having been imposed on the constituency by Labour’s National Executive Committee against the wishes of the local party. He then rose relatively swiftly through the party:

* Parliamentary Private Secretary (2003 – 2005)
* Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005 – 2006)
* Chief Secretary to the Treasury (2007 – 2008)
* Secretary of State for Health (2009 - 2010)

** In Opposition (2010 – 2017) – during which time he unsuccessfully contested Labour leadership elections in 2010 and 2015.

𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐨𝐫 𝐎𝐟 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 (𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟕 𝐭𝐨 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐞)
In 2017 Burnham stepped down as MP after becoming the Labour candidate for Manchester Mayor, duly winning the election. He was then re-elected in 2017 and 2024.

𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲
Burnham is a career politician – it’s all he’s ever done. Yet, his career has not been without controversies – these will be examined in the next post.

20/05/2026

𝑻𝑯𝑬 𝑫𝑬𝑴𝑰𝑺𝑬 𝑶𝑭 𝑻𝑾𝑶-𝑷𝑨𝑹𝑻𝒀 𝑷𝑶𝑳𝑰𝑻𝑰𝑪𝑺 (2)

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐰𝐨-𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬
Britian has essentially had two party politics since the origins of parliamentary democracy.
* 1707 – 1859: Whigs and Tories
* 1860 – 1923: Tories and Liberals
* 1824 to date: Labour and Tories.
Normally one of the two dominant parties of the time has formed a majority government.

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐒𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬
People vote for the political party that most matches their own political beliefs. If you believe in a big expansion of the state, higher benefits and higher taxes to pay for it all, you’ll vote Labour. If you believe in a halt to mass immigration, and the state brought back to a sensible size, you’ll vote Reform.

Over the past 25 years, both Labour and the Tories have been competing for the so-called centre ground. As a result, their policies have become increasingly similar in practice. Large numbers of voters on both sides of the political spectrum now feel that no party truly represents them and Labour and the Tories are two sides of the same coin.

This is the cause of the steadily falling number of voters in local and national elections – if voters feel they do not have a party attuned to their views, they simply stay at home. Turnout rates have increased again now disenchanted voters feel Reform (or the Greens) represent their own political views.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐖𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡?
Voters tend to switch parties because they feel that party is no longer aligned with their values. This generally means that they’ll switch to an adjacent party. For example, a significant part of Reform’s vote is ex-Tories who feel the party no longer speaks for them. Similarly, the Greens are picking up disaffected Labour voters. Large changes in alignment are less common; for example, it is unlikely an ex-Green voter will defect to Reform.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞-𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐕𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬
The albatross round the Tory party’s neck is their drift to the left and their record in office - they are now regarded as TINO (Tory In Name Only) . Reform could replace the Tories, but to do this they must deliver credible, workable policies, and keep winning local and parliamentary by-elections. They will then replace the Tory party as the dominant force on the right by the time of the next General Election.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞-𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐕𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬
The competition for centre-left votes is more complex. Labour has always had the Lib Dems siphoning off votes, but now there is a new kid on the block; the Greens. In addition, some Labour voters on the right of the party have defected to Reform.

The centre-left vote is likely to fragmentate; Labour retaining seats with large majorities, but losing seats with smaller majorities where their vote is eroded by otherr parties. The degree to which this will happen depends on how Labour performs in its remaining time in office; baring a miracle, they seem destined for a battering at the next General Election as their vote splinters.

𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲
Britian has operated a two-party parliamentary system for centuries, but at long intervals, a major political realignment takes place, with one of the two dominant parties replaced by a newer rival. In the short term, Reform has the opportunity of replacing the Tories as the dominant party of the right. The situation on the left of the political spectrum is more complex, with that vote likely to fragment and the new dominant, left-leaning party taking longer to emerge.

17/05/2026

𝑻𝑯𝑬 𝑫𝑬𝑴𝑰𝑺𝑬 𝑶𝑭 𝑻𝑾𝑶-𝑷𝑨𝑹𝑻𝒀 𝑷𝑶𝑳𝑰𝑻𝑰𝑪𝑺 (1)

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐥𝐝 𝐒𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦
For the past few generations, we have alternated between Labour and Tory governments; the ‘two party system’.

* 1970 – 1974: Conservative Government
* 1975 – 1978: Labour Government
* 1979 – 1996: Conservative Government
* 1997 – 2019: Labour Government
* 2010 – 2024: Conservative Government
* Today: Labour Government

The reason for this is simple: when sufficient dissatisfaction had built up, the only option to get rid of a Tory government was to vote Labour, (or vice versa). There was no other party to turn to with a realistic prospect of removing an incumbent government.

Dissatisfaction has continued to build up with both parties. The breaking point with the Tories probably came with the Brexit vote – they were widely perceived as being unwilling to take us out of the EU. Johnson eventually did, but then issues like Partygate just compounded the damage.

While it took the Tories about 15 years to build up a major level of dissatisfaction, it took Labour and Starmer just two. They failed to deliver much of their manifesto, while delivering things not in it: like the attempted surrender of the Chagos islands, and the withdrawal of winter fuel payments to pensioners. While stellar incompetence such as the appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador just compounded the disgruntlement.

The attitude of the electorate seems to be ‘a plague on both your houses’.

𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞
Reform made a political breakthrough because of the increased loathing of both the Tories and Labour – had both parties delivered on their election promises, Reform would still be a fringe party. Initially the party was the recipient of protest votes, but after the breakthrough in the 2025 General Election when the party got five seats (and access to government funding) Reform began to be seen as an alternative party of government.

This was confirmed when Reform made significant gains in the May 2025 local elections and took control of a number of councils. And further reinforced in May of this year, when Reform made major gains in those local elections. For the first time in decades voters have a realistic alternative to Labour and the Tories – something shown by Reform’s sustained lead in the opinion polls.
Reform now threatens the existence of the two-party system by giving voters an option for government other than Labour and the Tories.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐬: 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐊𝐢𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤
The Greens are not seen as a potential party of government, but they have the ability to do significant damage to Labour by capturing two key demographics Labour used to count on. The first is the ethnic minority vote – but the Green’s anti-Israel stance has meant many of those have defected to the Greens. And the second is the youth vote – the 18 to 20-year-olds voting for the first time in a general election; they too are defecting to the Greens in large numbers, particularly in university towns such as Brighton or Bristol.

𝐈𝐧 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲
The old two-party system is breaking down because a large majority of the electorate view both Labour and the Tories as unfit for government. Reform is now seen as a viable alternative to both. At the other end of the political spectrum, the Greens are beginning to erode the once traditional Labour vote.

The political tectonic plates are starting to shift and the two-party system may be coming to an end in its present form – Labour and the Tories no longer have a monopoly on government. The next post will look at what future politics might look like.

11/05/2026

𝑪𝑨𝑵 𝑺𝑻𝑨𝑹𝑴𝑬𝑹 𝑺𝑼𝑹𝑽𝑰𝑽𝑬?
So, can Starmer survive his multiple disasters – including the recent trouncing in the local, Scottish and Welsh elections? Well, Labour leaders are not easy to remove.

𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
Starmer could resign, which would automatically trigger a new leadership contest. But Starmer has already ruled that out, insisting he’s the right man for the job.

𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
This could happen if 20% of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) - 81 MPs - submit in writing that they have no confidence in the current leader. But, as this is very public, there will be reluctance to do this; it could be seen as disloyalty and damaging for future careers.

If a leadership election is forced by this method, Starmer automatically goes on the ballot paper if he wants to stand (which he’s stated he will). Each challenger will require a minimum 20% of Labour MPs (81) to nominate them, together with 5% of the constituencies and three affiliated organisations, including two major trade unions. Realistically Starmer would face three, or at the most four, challengers if a contest were triggered.

And were he to get back in, life would get very difficult for MPs and ministers who called for his resignation and/or backed his challengers.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐞
This would mean cabinet ministers resigning on-mass. There was an attempt to do this to Jeremy Corbyn when he was the Labour leader in opposition. Much of the party was convinced he was leading them to electoral disaster. In an attempt to force him to resign as Labour leader, 21 members of the Shadow Cabinet resigned in June 2016, followed by 18 other ministers not in the Cabinet. Corbyn simply appointed a new cabinet, although he had to scrape the barrel to get enough members. Starmer might well do the same.

𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐕𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐨 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞
This was another attempt to get rid of Corbyn, also in June 2016. Labour MPs passed a motion of no confidence in Corbyn – 172 MPs (about three quarters of them) expressing a lack of confidence in his leadership. Corbyn simply said this was not a measure in the Labour party rule book, had no constitutional validity, and he was staying. It finally took a major General Election defeat at the hands of Boris Johnson in 2019 to get rid of Corbyn.

𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲
It’ll be very difficult for the Labour party to get rid of Starmer as leader if he digs his heels in. Many Labour MPs have called for him to resign, but that’s very different from submitting the 81 written requests required to trigger a leadership contest. Other methods have been tried and failed in the past. If Stamer can bluff his way through the next few weeks, he’s probably going to survive to at least the Labour conference in September.

09/05/2026

𝑾𝑰𝑵𝑵𝑬𝑹𝑺 𝑨𝑵𝑫 𝑳𝑶𝑺𝑬𝑹𝑺 – 𝑬𝑵𝑮𝑳𝑰𝑺𝑯 𝑳𝑶𝑪𝑨𝑳 𝑬𝑳𝑬𝑪𝑻𝑰𝑶𝑵𝑺 – 7𝒕𝒉 𝑴𝒂𝒚 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔

𝐒𝐨, 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐖𝐨𝐧 (𝟏)?
Realistically Reform. The 1,451 seats they won dwarf the Lib Dems (155), and the Greens (441). Voters clearly believe that Reform is here to stay and is quite capable of forming the next government. Given that having local councillors and controlling councils is often the stepping stone to getting MP’s and winning a majority, Reform continues on an upward trajectory.

𝐒𝐨, 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐖𝐨𝐧 (𝟐)?
Reform gained 1,451 more councillors, but only gained control of an additional 14 councils. Local elections can be whole council (all councillors up for election every four years), by halves (half the councillors up for election every two years) and by thirds (one third of councillors up for election every three years). In many cases – particularly in councils who elect by thirds – Reform won large numbers of seats, but there weren’t enough seats being contested for Reform to win a majority.

This also accounts for the 24 councils that moved to No Overall Control. Reform won enough seats to take away the governing party’s majority, but again, there were not enough seats being contested for Reform to gain the majority themselves.

𝐒𝐨, 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐋𝐨𝐬𝐭 (𝟏)?
The Labour party big time. They had 2,196 seats up for election, and lost 1,496, 68%, or better than two thirds of them. And they lost control of 38 councils – some lost to Reform and some moving to No Overall Control. This is Labour’s worst ever local election performance, and they haemorrhaged votes in two directions.

Many voters on the right of the party defected to Reform. A smaller, but still significant number, on the left defected to the Greens. Labour suffers from two big problems. The first is failure to deliver on its General Election promises. The second is incompetence in office. They look to be terminal.

𝐒𝐨, 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐋𝐨𝐬𝐭 (𝟐)?
The Tories. They lost less seats than Labour (563), and control of 6 councils. But as they were only defencing 1,134 seats, they lost 50%, half the number they held. And the majority of those seats were lost to Reform. The Tories are suffering from the electorate remembering their fifteen useless years in office and look likely to be replaced by Reform as the party of the centre-right.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬-𝐔𝐩
The Lib Dems, as the other traditional centre-left party, should have been well placed to capitalise on Labour’s woes, but didn't. They only picked up 155 seats and gained control of one council. They’re doomed to stay a minor party.

The Greens didn’t do too badly, mainly at Labour’s expense – 441 seats won and control over five councils. But the Greens have a niche attraction. They’ve peeled off voters from the left of the Labour party, and they’ve played the antisemitic card to pick up Moslem voters. That’ll win them seats in specific areas – for example university towns or areas with high Muslim populations. That strategy won’t win them power at Westminster.

𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐔𝐩
There was one big winner; Negel Farage and Reform. And two major losers. Labour have nowhere to go but further decline. And the Tories face the real possibility of being replaced by Reform as the dominant party of the centre-right.

04/05/2026

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐑𝐎𝐘𝐀𝐋 𝐍𝐀𝐕𝐘
Successive Tory and Labour governments have reduced the Royal Navy to a state where it could not conduct meaningful operations any longer – see tables. We have two aircraft carriers, but they are plagued with difficulties, only carry a small air group and lack early warning aircraft that could spot an enemy vessel over the horizon.
There are only 8 frigates and destroyers in commission – the Royal Navy no longer has enough of these vessels to screen one carrier, let alone two. And, setting aside the ballistic missile submarines, it only has three attack submarines in service – again, not enough to deter an adversary.

Nor do we have the logistics to support a fleet operating away from home waters. There are just two tankers in commission, and one store ship. They could not supply sufficient oil and stores to keep the fleet operational.

In terms of landing a military force, there are three Bay Class landing ships. These could land a significant military force. But due to the small number of destroyers and frigates in service, there are not enough to screen both a carrier force and a landing force. And without carriers, the landing force is a sitting duck.

In short, the Royal Navy is no longer capable of carrying out an operation to recover any overseas British Territory should it be seized by an aggressor. The UK’s armed forces have been reduced to a pitiful state.

30/04/2026

𝐓̲𝐇̲𝐄̲ ̲𝐌̲𝐀̲𝐃̲𝐍̲𝐄̲𝐒̲𝐒̲ ̲𝐎̲𝐅̲ ̲𝐍̲𝐄̲𝐓̲ ̲𝐙̲𝐄̲𝐑̲𝐎̲

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀
The Labour and Tory obsession with Net Zero is doing terrible damage to the UK economy, and to personal finances. And much of this is unnecessary. Firstly, the UK is not a major contributor to greenhouse gasses – China, the US, India and Russia jointly count for over half of all greenhouse gas emissions. The UK – at about ¾% of world emissions – is an negliable contributor to greenhouse gases – see image below.

If we totally stopped producing greenhouse gases, it would have no measurable impact on global warning. Or we could change the way we approach the reduction of greenhouse gases, and achieve the same result with less damamge to the UK economy.

𝗡𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗲𝗮 𝗢𝗶𝗹
As part of Net Zero, Ed Miliband is blocking expanding North Sea Oil production. This is insanity for three reasons.

* It affects our energy security. As we are now finding out with Iranian oil exports blocked by the US. If North Sea oil and gas production had been maintained at a higher level, we would be less dependent on imported energy.

* The use of oil, petrol and gas causes greenhouse gas emissions. This is independent of the source of oil – if we use North Sea oil, we produce exactly the same amount of greenhouse gases as if we import those products.

* By not using North Sea Oil, we are giving away profits to non-UK companies. If we produced more from the North Sea, and stopped imports, it would actively benefit the UK’s economy – while not increasing the Uk’s greenhouse gas emissions.

𝗡𝗲𝘁 𝗭𝗲𝗿𝗼 𝗦𝘂𝗯𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘀
We domestic consumers have a climate change levy included/hidden in our energy bills. This about for 16% of electricity bills (about a sixth) and 5.5% of gas bills (about a 20th). Typically, this is about £200 pounds a year for a typical household. Reform policy is to scrap this levy, leaving everyone better off.

Industrial producers also pay a climate change levy – leaving UK industry with one of the highest energy changes in the world. These high energy costs have resulted in steady business closures and job losses. We have virtually no heavy industry left – where, for example, is the UK’s steel-making industry? Reform intends to scrap Net Zero, reducing industry’s costs and making British companies more competitive on the world stage.

𝗪𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗥𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗚𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀
As an indication of how insane the climate change levy is, it is charged on renewable energy – which by definition does not contribute to global warning. There are alternative ways that can be used to reduce global warming. To give three examples:

* Invest in Tidal Energy – the UK is rich in tidal energy; harnessing the daily change in sea levels. And unlike wind farms, which do not generate energy on calm days, tidal energy is utterly predictable; there are two tides a day from which to harvest energy.

* Reduce food waste – food that goes to landfill produces greenhouse gases as it decays. Require food to be packaged in sizes that suit one, two or four people. Then, shoppers can 'mix and match' to buy the quantities they actually need.

* Require the food producers to minimise size of the packaging. Packaging is generally designed to make the product look attractive – it could be redesigned to reduce the amount of surplus packaging and reduce waste. And less waste going to landful produces less decay products.

𝗦𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆
The climate change levy is lazy thinking by Labour and the Tories. There are alternative and more effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases. And those need not impact on the UK economy.

𝐕𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬.

07/04/2026

Travellers wielding iron bars barged their way onto green belt land and began laying concrete, villagers have claimed.

On Thursday, diggers and bulldozers arrived at the field off Friendless Lane, near the village of Flamstead, on the edge of the Chiltern Hills in Hertfordshire. Caravans are said to have followed in the early hours of Easter Sunday.

Travellers wielding iron bars barged their way onto green belt land and began laying concrete, villagers have claimed. Diggers and bulldozers arrived at t

03/04/2026

Cllr Canning said he had taken the decision to leave the Liberal Democrat group in SADC following a number of concerns about how it operates locally. Liberal Democrat group in St Albans has not operated in an open or democratic manner, particularly concerning important local issues in Harpenden

Harpenden councillor spills the beans on St Albans Lib Dems and their MURKY underworld. Leadership group, with limited opportunity for discussion and quite secretive

29/10/2025

𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑-𝐈𝐍𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐃𝐄𝐁𝐓
The country is living way beyond its means; we simply cannot afford the current level of government spending. In September, according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), this Labour government borrowed £20.2 billion pounds. This is a staggering £670 million a day. If Starmer and Reeves ran their own finances like they run the country’s, they’d soon be declared bankrupt.

The last government to keep public spending to a level the country could afford was Margret Thatcher’s, twenty years go. Since then, public spending under both Labour and the Tories had run out of control. As you can see from the top graph below, debt has risen from 25% of the UK’s annual wealth (GDP) to close to 100% of GDP. It has taken just 20 years to increase the country’s debt four-fold; and that money has to be paid back.

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠?
The debt is increasing for a number of reasons:

1) Neither the Labour nor the Tory party want you to know the country is broke. They will just keep on spending money we haven’t got and pretend they are governing the country well.

2) Both the Labour and tory governments are full of cabinet minsters who have done nothing but politics in their careers – there are no successful businessmen in either the cabinet or shadow cabinet. And, if you haven’t run a successful business, how can you run the country?

3) Labour and Tory politicians don’t want to be unpopular, so they promise this benefit and that benefit without the money to pay for them. Instead, they just borrow even more money.

Only Reform will take the tough and unpopular decisions to get the country’s finances back under control. Between them Labour and the Tory party have mortgaged your children’s and your grandchildren’s future. That’s how long it’ll take to get debt back to 25% of GDP.

𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐂𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞
One reason the country’s debt is increasing is the benefits culture. Twenty or thirty years ago, benefits were seen as a safety net; now they are seen as an entitlement. The graph on the lower left shows the number of people between 16 – 35 claiming disability or incapacity benefits. That's 10%, or about one person in ten. According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, compared to 2019, there are now another million people claiming these benefits in 2024. This is currently costing the country £48 billion pounds a year.

There are many deserving cases claiming disability benefits – people who have suffered strokes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and so on. But they are also people who are exploiting the system to claim disability benefits, housing benefits, and so on, and have a life entirely funded by the state. One of the commonest ways of achieving this is to claim disability benefits because of anxiety and depression – 361,437 people claim those for this this very reason. Another 75,554 claim disability benefits for depression, and 25,611 for anxiety disorders.

Again, there will be genuine cases with these forms of disability, but it is worthy of note that there are multiple YouTube videos advising you exactly what to say and do to get these benefits, despite being healthy. It is Reform policy to rigorously review such cases and w**d out the deserving from those abusing the system.

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 (𝟐)?
Another reason that our debt is increasing is the size of the public sector – the graph on the lower right shows the size of one part of the public sector – the Civil Service. John Major’s Tory administration brought it down to about 500,000 until ousted by Blair in 1997.

It stayed at broadly the same level for his time in government, although it rose and fell over his three terms. The Tory/Lib Dem coalition government of 2010 to 2015 got a grip, getting numbers down to about 425,000 before an uncontrolled rise under four Tory Prime Ministers, May, Johnson, and Sunak, where numbers went up by 100,000 extra civil servants over eight years. It's still increasing under Labour.

Again, with the current level of the country’s debt, we simply cannot afford to have 575,000 civil servants, and Reform has pledged to reduce their number by about 100,000.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫, 𝐈𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐭
Many people working in the public sector have only ever worked in the public sector. They have never worked in the private sector and know nothing of the discipline of running an organisation efficiently and at a profit. If the money runs out in the public sector, they just demand even more taxpayer’s money - and the UK’s p***c debt keeps on going up.

Reform – and the successful businessmen it will appoint to run government departments – will reduce the public sector headcount, w**d out benefits claimants exploiting the system, and take a range of other actions to bring the UK’s public finances under control.