Talk:Reform UK

Reverts 3 May 2024

@Galdrack: I deleted the material because I could not find it in the ‘Our contract with You’. Please direct me to the actual webpage/s and wording/s which you are relying on. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970 depends on which revert you mean?

For the "Make Britain Great" slogan it's seen in the first link: "https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3247196/make-britain-great-right-wing-upstarts-threaten-uk-tories" but a cursory search will show it frequently appearing in campaign material as an example: "https://reformuk.nationbuilder.com/"

The second paragraph is much more about wording than the claims being made, just to isolate them the claims are "promotion of military, celebration of flags and symbols, patriotic language, usage of British values as a phrase, government invervention of nationalised organisations".

From the linked page and their "contract with you" https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1708781032/Reform_UK_Contract_With_The_People.pdf?1708781032

"usage of British values as a phrase": Variations on "British Culture/British Values/Christian Values" or otherwise appear numerous times throughout the document.

"Government intervention of nationalised organisations": Ok well this one is pretty clear as they frequently make reference to "woke" ideologies destroying education systems or otherwise and make direct reference to a "ban on transgender ideology" and "ban on critical race theory" in schools. Along with reforming the civil service by essentially privatising the jobs.

"promotion of military": Well there's two sections dedicated to this between "Defence" and "Veterans" where they promote the military and bemoan the army having the "smallest size in 300 years" which isn't true but on top of this list increasing the military funding etc as an urgent action required within the first 100 days (which is rather extreme). The Veterans section directly promotes prioritising veterans in the army for every public service and even for public jobs, on top of this many of the other sections (police and Justice) also former military personel being prioritised in some of these functions.

"Patriotic language" and "Celebration of flags and symbols": Frankly I think the phrasings above fall into this category, the contract is pretty heavy on jingoism though this is a section that I think needs better clarification than straight up deletion really. Galdrack (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

{1) Make Britain Great

a) The scmp source is not available to me

b) I don’t know the scmp source, and I am not convinced that it is reliable

c) The section of our article where the material appears is Our contract with you so, even if this was soundly sourced, it is not appropriate to have it in this section.

d) The reformuk.nationbuilder source does mention the slogan. But I cannot find it the party’s web page for ‘Our contract with You’. So I don’t see how it could be correct to say that the party uses it as a slogan. Also, the material in our article is under the section ‘Our contract with You’. So even if it was justified, it should not be in this section.

2) In its manifesto it supports military might and military action, celebration of flags and symbols, is in favour of patriotic language and what it describes as traditional British values.

a) You do not mention any wording which would support military might and military action, . I have looked through the ‘Contract’ , and also the webpage you linked to, and I cannot find anything which could support this.

b) Similarly, I can’t find anything about ‘celebration of flags and symbols

3) "usage of British values as a phrase":

You commented: Variations on "British Culture/British Values/Christian Values" or otherwise appear numerous times throughout the document.

Surely all political parties maintain that they are in favour of ‘British values’ ? e.g. the Labour party have been using the Union Jack (flag) in its election material. This is not significant enough to be highlighted in our article.

4) government intervention in independent organisations such as the BBC, National Trust, schools and universities to ensure that views with which it agrees are given prominence and views which it opposes are blocked.

a) Please provide the exact wording you are relying on. For instance, I found a statement that they are in favour of abolishing the BBC licence fee, but nothing which would justify the material in our article.

b)Regarding education: I found material saying Reform is opposed to CRT (Critical Race Theory) and the idea that there are more than 2 sexes or genders. But not anything that would justify the present wording.

5|) Other policies

I also found, reading the ‘Contract’, that Reform is in favour of (i) proportional representation (ii) reforming the House of Lords (iii) leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. Do you agree that these policies should be mentioned in this section?

Sorry this is so long. Happy reading!

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any comments on ‘Our contract with You’? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Make Britain Great

So SCMP is listed under reliable sources for Wiki and as the second link I provided shows it's widely used in campaigning material (or was at least), so calling it a slogan is pretty much on board as it's not required for the party to confirm or deny it as a slogan. That said in terms or location within this article sure it could be moved to somewhere more appropriate, that's fine but deleting it would be wrong as it's likely to be missed in later edits. I'm considering this point closed now as it's clearly supported by reliable sources.

Military Might

I guess direct support for the military is more clear and jingoistic fervor? Either way I did list direct references towards militarism within the contract in my comment above, so again editing rather than deletion would be the option here.

usage of British values as a phrase

Let's not be facetious and pretend inclusion of the flag is equivalent to repeated usage of phrases like "British values/British Culture/Christian Values" in a party statement, particularly for a party that has barely had a consistent presence in British politics. The phrasing in this sentence is pretty on-point.

government intervention in independent organisations such as the BBC, National Trust, schools and universities to ensure that views with which it agrees are given prominence and views which it opposes are blocked

In terms of the part on Education alone, you mentioned you found the paragraph's I referenced which explicitly support the statement above as they reference themselves in the "contract with you". Page 30 on the "comprehensive free speech bill" very clearly lists their motivations are based on interfering with views they oppose. The section the BBC is referenced in also (again) makes explicit statements of "woke ideology" which is another buzzword.

These entries are pretty clearly supported by the text in their document as far as I can see, I think it needs re-wording or editing which is something I'd do if I had time but given they're supported in the pages provided deletion isn't needed here.

Other Policies

Sure I don't have an issue with the additional ones being added though (i) and (ii) are already listed under the same section but in an upper paragraph. I don't see (iii) there though.

No worries about the length sorry for taking so long to get back here. Galdrack (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

1) Make Britain Great

Yes, I see that SCMP is listed as a reliable source, though I think it’s odd to use the South China Morning Post as a source for UK politics. But since it is not in the ‘Contract’, I think we agree that this should not be in the ‘Contract’ section. And it appears to have been abandoned, as it is not in the ‘Contract’. So I think this should come under ‘2020–present as Reform UK’ and it should be in the past tense: It has used the slogan ‘Make Britain Great’ which is similar to that used by Donald Trump, for whom its leaders have expressed support.

2) military might and military action, celebration of flags and symbols, patriotic language

I don’t see any justification for this wording in our article. I don’t know what you mean by I guess direct support for the military is more clear and jingoistic fervor? I can’t find anything in the ‘Contract’ about this. There is some mention of support for military veterans – this is not support for ‘military might’ or ‘military action’. I also don’t see anything which could be described as ‘celebration of flags and symbols’.

3) traditional British values

I’m not convinced that there is enough in the ‘Contract’ to justify a mention of this in the ‘Contract’ section.

4) government intervention in independent organisations

The current wording is not supported by anything in the ‘Contract’ and I don’t understand why you think it is. Unless you can provide a suitable alternative wording, this whole wording should be deleted.

5) Other policies

Since these policies are actually mentioned in the ‘Contract’, I think it is worthwhile to include them in the ‘Contract’ section, along with their intention to abolish the BBC licence fee.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

1) I think that's fine, though it was used as recently as 2023 which makes it hard to tell if it's something they'll continue to use or not considering they have used it for a while.

2/3) Yea in terms of "military might and military action" that's fine by me but patriotic language is rife within the doc particularly the leanings on values etc, I don't see it's removal as being appropriate. The document makes mention of "British values" or variants there of more than 5 times with a basic search and it appears in several of their key sections. This is rather excessive for a contract for a political party and they're some of the most used phrases in the document I don't see the removal of reference to "British values" or "Patriotic language" as being appropriate here tbh.

4) There's direct reference to it in the opening passage when they state: "Multiculturalism has imported separate communities that reject our way of life. ‘Woke’ ideology has captured our public institutions", on page 11 under the paragraph "Common sense policing not Woke Policing", page 15 under education with both referenced Trans and CRT bans and again on page 30 under "Reclaiming Britain".

In terms of re-wording I could say "They support authoritative restrictions on education systems by banning "X/Y/Z" due to unsubstatiated claims made within the document" though I think that's even more personal/aggressive. As it stands they want to make significant changes to curricula of these instutitons based on their personal perspectives on these topics which is authoritarian in nature though calling it authoritarian might sound too aggressive for this page. What else would be suitable for such an approach?

5) Not if they're already listed under the same broad chapter though, if these sections I mentioned above are also already on the page then the "contract with you" section itself could just be re-edited to say "Many of the mentioned topics are included in their "contract with you"" or something to that effect? Galdrack (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I am having major trouble with my keyboard and I can’t give you a proper reply at present.Sweet6970 (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries this doesn't need to be urgent, I just replied quickly as I was available. Galdrack (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

My keyboard seems to be working today.

I propose that the sub-section heading Our Contract with You be deleted, and instead, we have a paragraph about the Contract:

The party has issued Our Contract with You, which they describe as a ‘working draft’. As at May 2024, this expressed their support for British values, and their intention to support military veterans. It included commitments to proportional representation, reforming the House of Lords, leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, and abolishing the BBC licence fee. It mentions the party’s opposition to Critical Race Theory, and to the idea that there are more than 2 sexes or genders.

This would be followed by a separate paragraph: The party has used the slogan ‘Make Britain Great’ which is similar to that used by Donald Trump, for whom its leaders have expressed support.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I have now made the changes. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, sorry I didn't see and get back to your last comment but yea all good by me, Galdrack (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It does seem strange to me that when the party slogan "Make Britain Great" is mentioned in the article text it is required to in the same breath be described as similar to Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again", when although that is true it is fairly obviously a play on the words of the country name "Great Britain". Great Britain.. .. Make Britain Great. Boscaswell talk 04:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2024

Under political positions, change 'opposes measures to combat climate change' to 'opposes Net Zero'. The party supports efforts to stop climate change but believes in doing it a different way. 2A0A:EF40:EE1:1D01:6D06:9642:D88C:7AB6 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2024

Reform U.K. is more Specifically a Centre Right Party. (Important to say that and be specific with all the accusations that fly about currently.) 78.149.180.44 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Czello ^(music) 23:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

We should cross reference Open Council Data and Reform Derby

We should add reform derby councilors to the total as they are generally accepted as members of both parties. Local council seats seem to be out of place for example Councilor Alan Graves the Leader of Reform Derby is a member of both parties and is not added to the list on http://opencouncildata.co.uk/councillors.php?p=459&y=0 the ones missing are all of the Reform Derby Members and they are current members of the Derby council

For example on May 24th Alan Graves stood as the Reform UK candidate for the East Midlands Mayor (https://www.reformderby.uk/may-24-elections/)

I think we should mark them down similarly to how the Co-op/Labor councilors are marked

I'll monitor this as it updates and once the parties make there affiliation more clear - AbledAtol

I made an edit a few hours ago in which the Derby situation (they’re members of both) isn’t stated precisely but is taken as read. This followed another editor's addition which pointed out the Reform Derby connection. Boscaswell talk 10:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

yes that was me, Additionally if any TUV or SDP members get elected under the joint ticket what do you think would be best to mark them as AbledAtol (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Clacton

Hey, just a day or so ago four members of the Tendring District Council joined Reform UK according to the Times video entitled "LIVE: Nigel Farage Meets Voters in Clacton" I was hoping the article could be updated to reflect this change. 96.70.106.102 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

which council are they so i can update it AbledAtol (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Tendring District Kiwiz1338 (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Reversed Minor Edit?

Hello,

In the "elections" section I added "see also" sections for the 2019 and 2024 general elections, but this has been removed.

If there is a "see also" section for the 2019 EP election, why can't there be for these other elections? BrendonJH (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)