Thread: The rise of Reform.

Originally Posted by taxexile

they will only allow the union jack to be flown. some town councils, towns with large muslim populations, have taken to displaying the palestinian flag on their town halls as if that will make any difference to the outcome of that conflict.

Showing solidarity with the Palestinian people, the same as flying the flag of Ukraine; showing solidarity with the people of Ukraine. But I agree, flying the flag will make no difference to either conflict.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Showing solidarity with the Palestinian people

Fuck that.

Originally Posted by Neverna

the same as flying the flag of Ukraine

Not the same. Not by a long shot. Ukraine is currently facing a real genocide, the images there are not staged, photoshopped nonsense like in Pallywood.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Showing solidarity with the Palestinian people, the same as flying the flag of Ukraine; showing solidarity with the people of Ukraine. But I agree, flying the flag will make no difference to either conflict.

local government should not be making these vapid gestures, virtue signalling by any other name, at the taxpayers expense.

and especially not where the conflict in question has a faith element in it. it can only promote the rise of sectarianism in english politics, something that is certainly not needed.

the nonsense kicking off in kashmir right now will soon be out on british streets. british town councils should restrict their support to british interests only.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Here are the councils Reform UK now control:

Derbyshire
Kent
Lancashire
Lincolnshire
Nottinghamshire
Staffordshire
Doncaster
Durham
North Northamptonshire
West Northamptonshire

They showed in Brussels that when they actually have a job to do everything falls apart.

Let's see how they do there.

And I agree with tax - I couldn't give a toss about flags.

Originally Posted by taxexile

the nonsense kicking off in kashmir right now will soon be out on british streets.

Hopefully a couple of stray shots hit dewsbury, rochdale and oldham

Islamist sectarianism is the most frightening force in British politics and will only grow stronger.

Extremism has found a powerful democratic voice, bolstered by mass immigration and cowardly politicians from the mainstream parties

Camilla Tominey

09 May 2025 3:18pm BST



Adnan Hussain, the independent MP for Blackburn, has criticised free speech because “it means protecting the right to offend Muslims” Credit: Newsquest, SWNS

The growing tensions between India and Pakistan have prompted repeated warnings that “sectarianism threatens to spill onto the streets of Britain”.

But it’s a bit too late for that. Sectarianism isn’t just rife at the protests in London or even the rhetoric being spouted in the mosques and madrassas of the UK.

It is fast infecting our local councils, Parliament itself and many of our great institutions. So much so, in fact, that a senior Labour source told me recently that its MPs were unlikely to get re-elected in some parts of the country.

“Leicester is lost, as are parts of Birmingham and Bradford,” he conceded. “We won’t get elected in some of these areas again.”

As the focus understandably turned to the rise of Reform, few noticed that the local elections once again witnessed the elevation of a number of Islamist candidates.

In years gone by, they would have stood for Labour, but the growth of Britain’s nearly four million strong Muslim population means they are now able to be elected in their own right – without being tied to a national party.

In Burnley Central East, Maheen Kamran was elected as an independent in the formerly Labour-held ward after campaigning in favour of segregation between the sexes. The pro-Gaza candidate, 18, won 38 per cent of the vote, surpassing Reform UK’s 30 per cent and leaving Labour trailing in third place on 14 per cent.

The victory came after Ms Kamran said she had been motivated to enter politics by the “genocide” taking place in Gaza, and called for the end of “free mixing” between Muslim men and women. Progressive stuff.


In nearby Brierfield and Nelson West, Mohammed Iqbal beat Labour to win his seat as an independent with a 2,396 majority. Formerly the Labour leader of Pendle Council, the 63-year-old was suspended by the party after the Jewish Chronicle revealed that during a debate on flying the Palestinian flag above Nelson Town Hall, he said: “The fact is that what’s going on in Ukraine, Palestine, and other areas I’ve mentioned, reminds me, I barely passed my GCSE history at school, but many people in this room will remember what justification Hitler had for what he did to the Jews in the Second World War.”
Mr Iqbal later insisted: “I wish to publicly state I am not anti-Semitic and have campaigned all my life against all forms of racism and sexism and will continue to do so.”

Another suspended Labour candidate, Azhar Ali, won the neighbouring seat of Nelson East despite being dumped by the party as its parliamentary contender for the Rochdale by-election. He was dropped after apologising “unreservedly” following reports he had told a meeting that Israel “allowed” Hamas’s attack on October 7 in order to get a “green light to do whatever they bloody want”.

Other pro-Palestine politicians to win council seats last week include pro-Gaza Sohail Asghar for the Greens in Accrington West and Oswaldtwistle Central. Just days after the October 7 attacks, Asghar reposted a message on X which read: “Israel = Isis”. He has promoted the posts of people associated with Holocaust denial.

None of this should come as any surprise, not least when Labour’s vote share in highly Muslim-populated areas dropped by 29 percentage points at the last general election, from 65 per cent in 2019 to 36 per cent in 2024.

And still Labour panders to the Islamists. As the Conservative MP Nick Timothy has raised in the House of Commons, Labour pretends not to engage with groups like the European Islamic Centre (EIC) which is associated with the Islamist ideologues Jamaat-e-Islami and Abul A’la al-Maududi. And yet, Jim McMahon, the minister for Local Government and English Devolution, attended an iftar hosted by the EIC during Ramadan. The Government also insists it has a “non-engagement policy” with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), and yet Stephen Timms, the minister for Social Security and Disability, attended the MCB’s annual dinner in January.

Some are less subtle. Last November, the Labour MP Tahir Ali called on Sir Keir Starmer to introduce measures to prohibit “desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of Abrahamic religions”. The Prime Minister did not rule it out, instead insisting that we must tackle “Islamophobia in all its forms”.

In February, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner appointed Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative attorney general, to lead a review into creating a new definition of Islamophobia, despite repeated warnings it could curb free speech. Ever the wetty, Grieve appeared to pre-empt the outcome by saying he hoped the review would “help support positive change in our country”.

And we have Lucy Powell, Leader of the House of Commons, suggesting that anyone who mentions the grooming rape gangs scandal is blowing a “dog whistle”.

Last month, a group of 20 Labour MPs petitioned the prime minister of Pakistan to build a new airport in Mirpur, the ancestral homeland of a majority of Britain’s Pakistani population.

Factor in the regular contributions of the four “pro-Gaza” independent MPs in Parliament and you can’t easily escape sectarianism. Iqbal Mohamed, the MP for Dewsbury and Batley, has spoken out against a ban on first cousin marriage in the Commons, suggesting that “ordinary people see family inter-marriage overall as something that is very positive”.

And this week, Adnan Hussain, the independent MP for Blackburn, criticised free speech because “it means protecting the right to offend Muslims”.

It came after Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, highlighted the case of Hamit Coskun, 50, who was initially charged with intent to cause distress “against the religious institution of Islam” after allegedly burning a Quran. As Jenrick rightly pointed out, blasphemy was abolished as a common law offence in England and Wales in 2008. The Crown Prosecution Service has now acknowledged the charge was “incorrectly worded” and has amended it.

Even some Tories have been indulging the Islamists in their midst by this week signing a letter demanding that the UK “recognises Palestine” in a move that would only embolden the murderous death cult that is Hamas.

Meanwhile, Indhu Rubasingham, who refused to host the UK Jewish Film Festival when she was head of the Kiln Theatre in Kilburn (then known as the Tricycle) in 2014, has just been appointed to lead the National Theatre, while Minouche Shafik has been picked as the new head of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Baroness Shafik, you may remember, was president of Columbia University in the US during the outbreak of the worst anti-Semitism the campus has seen in recent times, before she resigned last year.

After years of turning a blind eye to sectarianism, it is now everywhere you look.

.... and people wonder why the spread of islam is treated with so much suspicion by ethnic brits in britain, a christian country.

Originally Posted by taxexile

.... and people wonder why the spread of islam is treated with so much suspicion by ethnic brits in britain, a christian country.

Not for long. The muzzies are going to take over Britain.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Not for long. The muzzies are going to take over Britain.

I swear snubby, for a supposed lefty, there are times when I find it hard to distinguish between you and MAGA.

Enter stage left, pickle.

So....how's this reform coming along?

Most can't see it.

Dumbed down as usual.

Err...Charlton Athletic.

Originally Posted by hallelujah

Enter stage left, pickle.

You rang?

Originally Posted by bsnub

The muzzies are going to take over Britain.

The most recent census, March 2021, asked people about their religion. This was a voluntary question, answered by around 94% of respondents.

Across Great Britain, 46% of people identified as being Christian, 38% said they had no religion, 6% identified as Muslim, and 2% identified as Hindu. Around 2% identified as being Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish or of another religion.

parliament.uk/constituency-data-religion...


For the first time in a census of England and Wales, less than half of the population (46.2%, 27.5 million people) described themselves as “Christian”, a 13.1 percentage point decrease from 59.3% (33.3 million) in 2011; despite this decrease, “Christian” remained the most common response to the religion question.

“No religion” was the second most common response, increasing by 12.0 percentage points to 37.2% (22.2 million) from 25.2% (14.1 million) in 2011.

There were increases in the number of people who described themselves as “Muslim” (3.9 million, 6.5% in 2021, up from 2.7 million, 4.9% in 2011) and “Hindu” (1.0 million, 1.7% in 2021, up from 818,000, 1.5% in 2011).

Religion, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Originally Posted by taxexile

Iqbal Mohamed, the MP for Dewsbury and Batley, has spoken out against a ban on first cousin marriage in the Commons, suggesting that “ordinary people see family inter-marriage overall as something that is very positive”.

The very positive being the extra benefits they get for their deformed and disabled inbred child.

Originally Posted by Joe 90

Iqbal Mohamed, the MP for Dewsbury and Batley

Originally Posted by Lostandfound

The Reform candidates were pretty low grade IMO.

This is where Reform may become unstuck.

A GE is a few years away and a hell of a long time in local politics..

Originally Posted by Joe 90

This is where Reform may become unstuck.

A GE is a few years away and a hell of a long time in local politics..

Au contraire they reflect their supporters and can connect to the many who are disatisfied and worried . I Labour flops Ferofm could indeed repace the Tories as the maon contender but with both left amd right only gaining c 40% of the votes forming a regime may require Tory support even if they come 3rd or even 4th behind the Liberals .Election is a long time ot yet so almost anything may happen, recession, wars, plagues and thats just my menagerie.

L+F you metion 20k a year ,I didn't know English councillors were paid or is this expenses for loss of earnings , travel etc?

Originally Posted by Joe 90

This is where Reform may become unstuck.

A GE is a few years away and a hell of a long time in local politics..

They might even have to do some work, and try not to look like retired bouncers.

Originally Posted by Neverna

The most recent census, March 2021, asked people about their religion. This was a voluntary question, answered by around 94% of respondents.

Across Great Britain, 46% of people identified as being Christian, 38% said they had no religion, 6% identified as Muslim, and 2% identified as Hindu. Around 2% identified as being Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish or of another religion.

parliament.uk/constituency-data-religion...


For the first time in a census of England and Wales, less than half of the population (46.2%, 27.5 million people) described themselves as “Christian”, a 13.1 percentage point decrease from 59.3% (33.3 million) in 2011; despite this decrease, “Christian” remained the most common response to the religion question.

“No religion” was the second most common response, increasing by 12.0 percentage points to 37.2% (22.2 million) from 25.2% (14.1 million) in 2011.

There were increases in the number of people who described themselves as “Muslim” (3.9 million, 6.5% in 2021, up from 2.7 million, 4.9% in 2011) and “Hindu” (1.0 million, 1.7% in 2021, up from 818,000, 1.5% in 2011).

Religion, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

I wonder how King Charles and the Prince of Wales filled out their census forms.

Originally Posted by cyrille

They might even have to do some work, and try not to look like retired bouncers.

I wish Pete Hegseth would try not to look like a practicing drunk.

Anyone is better than the conservatives or labour who have run this country into the ground.

want to know why the population of the uk is firmly behind the reform party, and the government of the moment is running very very scared.

then read on.

Britain’s politicians are terrified of a revolt. Free speech crackdowns won’t save them
Frantic police raids over social media posts hardly speak of a country at ease with itself and its politics


Sam Ashworth-Hayes
Related Topics

11 May 2025 5:30pm BST


Julian Foulkes next to his "Brexity" bookcase

A Soviet and an American meet in a bar. After a while, the conversation turns to the Cold War, and the American loudly insists that democracy is the superior system: “If I were to stand outside the White House and yell ‘Nixon is an idiot’, nothing would happen to me,” he says. The Russian shrugs. “So what? If I stand outside the Kremlin and yell ‘Nixon is an idiot’, nothing happens to me either.”

Trying to discuss free speech in Britain is like having this conversation over and over again.

When J D Vance, the US vice-president, criticised the UK’s repeated “infringements on free speech”, Keir Starmer felt compelled to contradict him, insisting “we’ve had free speech for a very long time”. This is simply untrue.

This week, The Telegraph unearthed another reminder that the British state considers monitoring social media to be one of its most important functions. Julian Foulkes, a retired special constable, dared to criticise the pro-Palestine marches in London. His post was viewed 26 times in total. Unfortunately, one of those views came from a Metropolitan Police unit specialising in extremism.

Two days after sending the post, six officers with batons and pepper spray arrested Mr Foulkes at his home, handcuffed him, searched his property for Right-wing material – rifling through his wife’s underwear while criticising his “Brexity” bookshelves – threw him in a jail cell for eight hours, then released him to accept a caution.

This is not appropriate behaviour in a democracy where the political system is supposed to allow for dissenting views and criticism of the Government. It is, however, very in keeping with Britain’s unique understanding of how free speech works, and the state’s approach to managing its population.

Take the CPS decision earlier this year to charge Hamit Coskun with harassing the “religious institution of Islam” after he burned a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate. When Robert Jenrick attacked the Crown Prosecution Service on social media, the charges were rapidly revised to charge him with disorderly behaviour instead.

But changing the name given to an action doesn’t change its substance. The CPS was caught out in what was effectively an attempt to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws, and as a result has attempted to settle on an alternative charge which will have the same effect without the same incendiary wording.

Complaints about “two-tier” policing of actions and speech sting our politicians because they are plainly true. When West Yorkshire Police sit in on a meeting in a mosque as a headteacher, mother and imam beg the “community” not to carry out the death threats sent to a child who scuffed a Koran, then record the scuffing as a “hate incident”, when the Batley grammar school teacher is in hiding for his own protection while those who threaten him walk free, when police officers and councillors in Rotherham and beyond insist that rape gangs preying on children need to be covered up to protect “community cohesion”, the state is showing you how it carries out its function of keeping the peace.

As Britain has become more diverse, the state has reordered itself around this new reality. Nation states, homogeneous and governed as such, slot neatly into cultural and institutional frameworks that allow for luxuries such as policing by consent of a singular community. The incentives given by this model are perverse.

If you set out with the goal of minimising the risk of conflict between groups, then you will tend to police those who are easily policed, rather than those who infringe on the rights of others. Peaceful pro-Israel protesters are arrested for holding signs stating the official position of the British state – that Hamas is a terrorist organisation – for their own “safety”. The same police force will tie itself in knots attempting to explain why calls for “jihad” at a Hizb ut-Tahrir protest are fine.

Your rights, in other words, are directly related to the perceived threat your group poses. If you are largely peaceful, you will face the full force of the law as it attempts to avoid clashes between groups. If police officers are worried that a riot will result from confrontation, an offender will likely walk free. And the wider war on free speech results from the same dynamic.

There is a complacent idea that restricting speech for political ends is the sort of thing that happens in dictatorships, the act of rulers who fear that common knowledge of dissent might lead to revolt.

Now think, briefly, about how Britain restricts speech around migration, around diversity, around “community relations”.


Britain’s ruling classes did not make Britain diverse with the consent of the governed. They did it despite repeated demonstrations that the population wanted nothing to do with half-baked dreams of an American-style melting pot.

They suppressed discussion of issues of integration, covered up crimes and scandals, buried data, and insisted over and over again that the project was working, terrified of what might happen if they were proven wrong.

This was very rarely explicitly stated. Politicians have generally managed to elide cracking down on harsh words with fighting violence by talking in vague terms about instigators or tensions; they have pretended that granting a state-enforced veto on speech to the sensibilities of one group or another is simply the act of a decent, kind society rather than a state running scared of the tensions it has allowed to grow.

Prof David Betz at King’s College London has warned us how this might end. Our country is already splintered, factionalised, polarised and economically moribund, the perfect conditions for civil conflict. And politicians who raged at Elon Musk for suggesting this was a possibility now behave as if the slightest spark will light the tinder.

That is not the behaviour of an elite confident in the stability of the country they have built. Read between the lines of the speeches on diversity as strength, and migration as lifeblood, and the message is clear: they are terrified of what might happen, and have no idea how to fix things. Clamping down on free speech is their last roll of the dice. If that fails, what next?

the reform party at the moment have no chance of forming a government, but they have perfectly crystallised the dissatisfaction felt by the majority of brits at the direction the country has taken. reform are moving forcing the government to take note, and to review the direction they seek to take the country.

after immigration, comes the bankrupting idiocy of net zero, and after that comes dealing with the epidemic of low level crime that infects every town and city in the country, aided by a police force and justice system that ignore it as they persecute the users of social media and those who dare upset certain "communities".

we have been taken for fools for long enough. and reform are very successfully voicing that discontent.

now back to my very brexity bookcase.

Originally Posted by Bonecollector

Anyone is better than the conservatives or labour who have run this country into the ground.

I think you'll find that 14 years of a Conservative government did that.

Which is why Labour are now fixing the mess they've been left.

Originally Posted by Bonecollector

Anyone is better than the conservatives or labour who have run this country into the ground.

What idiotic bollocks.

Look at who was in power for 14 of the last 15 years.