Talk:Reform UK

Far right

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/far-right-shift-reform-uk-receives-record-breaking-votes-in-by-elections/ar-BB1inEv7?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=b845245e9dd747c98cf2eaea4fa0fcea&ei=6 194.120.133.1 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has already been had. But to reply to your source, the article is quite lacking and the term "Far-right" is only used in the title of the article. It doesn't refer to Reform UK itself as Far-right and in-fact twice calls it "Right-wing" if anything this source backs the status quo of the article. DontForgetJeff (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Spoiler

It shoulg be mentioned that this party is a huge spoiler against the Tories. --95.24.65.189 (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Would you like to suggest some material we can cite? Bondegezou (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I got an article from The Guardian that mentions this, ‘Done with Labour and the Tories’: Reform UK attracts angry voters by Luke Tryl. Gonna make a mention on the basis of it. Brat Forelli🦊 07:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent Page Modification

The most recent page modification seems to contain politically charged language and may possibly be in violation of NPOV and possibly OR. Assertions that the party is far right (by whom?) despite the label being rejected for usage when it has been suggested in the past for this article, and claims that Reform UK wishes to return Britain to “19th Century Victorian values”, oppose “the accepted norms of society” and believes its views “should be enforced throughout society” (have they said this? Where?) without adequate citations to support these claims. I do not mean to assume bad faith, but it does seem to take the least charitable interpretation of the policies, and seems to be specifically designed to “nudge” the reader to think or to perceive the party in a particular way. The only citations provided for these are Reform’s manifesto. Citing the manifesto when making claims like these is fundamentally inadequate evidence.

If there is evidence to back up these claims, that isn’t just an interpretation of the manifesto, this should be cited in the article. 2A00:23EE:1080:BDF0:21C2:4DDD:1BA0:E1BF (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Right-wing populist in the opening of the article?

The article opens with "Reform UK is a right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom." as the characterization of the party. I find the use of the term "Populism" to be inconsistent with articles on other political parties in the UK or elsewhere, like the UK's Labour party or the US's Democratic and Republican party, which would fit the description for Left-wing populist or right-wing populist, and yet it is not mentioned in their wikipages' opening. I'm not sure how to approach this issue, whether the issue is with this wikipage or a broader issue with the term populism and its appropriation to different political parties. Removing the term populist from this article will make it consistent with other articles of political parties, but it will disregard the fact that there are clear populist elements to the party. Perhaps a change in phrasing along the lines of "Reform UK is a right wing political party in the United Kingdom." but including the party's populist aspect later on in the article would be the best solution? In-fact i'm not sure it is reasonable to characterize any party, right or left, as a populist party in the opening description of that party's article, though it is important to reference in the article. Casual readers will only read the first, opening paragraph and will characterize the party accordingly. Thewildshoe (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not you think this party fits the definition of a populist party doesn't matter. What reliable sources describe the party as does. Cortador (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. Thewildshoe (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What we say on Wikipedia has to be based on what reliable sources say. If you want to suggest changes to this or other articles of this nature, you need to show how the weight of reliable sources supports your position. Populism is a standard term in political science. We have reliable sources routinely describing Reform UK as populist. I’ve not seen lots of reliable sources describing Labour or the Democrats in the US as populist. If you think there are reliable sources we’re overlooking, please suggest them here. Bondegezou (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the topic. I suggest you try reading the topic again and the clarification I just added. Thewildshoe (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Clarification: I'll repeat what i've said, since the 2 commentators have misunderstood what I wrote. The issue is not about whether or not Reform UK are right-wing populists. I've said that they clearly have right-wing populist elements.

The issue is about consistency with other articles, particularly about describing them as populists in the opening of the article, as is clearly written in the title of the topic I've started. I've explicitly suggested to simply move the their description as populists to other parts of the article.

Please try to keep the replies relevant to the topic I've started. Thewildshoe (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't routinely describe republicans/democrats as right/left wing populists. It might be an opinion shared by some but unlike with Reform UK, it's nowhere near agreement.

If you agree with the description of Reform as populist but the problem is that other parties you believe to be populist are not described that way, that is something to raise on the talk pages of said parties. Amberkitten (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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)