Joshua Aspiring Journalist

Is UK politics over? This is a question I often ponder as I stare into the void of political lectures on my computer screen. While politics is not necessarily “over” per se, it is easy to say that our “British value” of democracy is on its deathbed. Who clearly threatens our political system? Tommy Robinson or Nigel Farage, perhaps, as that certainly seems to be what many politicians believe. Nearly the whole Liberal Democrat conference centred on Nigel Farage. In his speech, Ed Davey mentioned Farage and Reform UK (25 times) in comparison to his own party (16 times). With this kind of influence, Farage must surely become a very significant member of British politics in the near future.

To be able to evaluate the significance of these so-called “threats,” we must first look at British and even global democracy. Democracy, as many already know, began with the Greeks. According to National Geographic, “The word ‘democracy’ comes from two Greek words that mean people (demos) and rule (kratos).” However, this ancient form of democracy is extraordinarily different from contemporary democracy. In Ancient Greece, every adult man had to take part in the democratic system, facing punishment such as public shaming for not fulfilling their role in the democracy. This meant that Athenian democracy could be described as a direct democracy — a democracy in which its citizens’ decisions have a direct impact on the nation-state. This is unlike any democracy of today, where we vote for a representative to make decisions in our place. The closest modern society often gets to being a direct democracy is during a referendum, such as the Brexit referendum and the Scottish Independence referendum.

The formation of Britain’s democratic norms and institutions is the result of a historical progression, starting perhaps with the House of Commons in 1341 in our British political system. This allowed for people other than the nobility to have a say in politics. Before 1341, Parliament met as a single body made up of nobles, clergy, and representatives of towns and counties, but it was not yet divided into two houses. Lords were, and still are, appointed by the British monarch, meaning naturally only the very richest of the UK were able to have a say in the country’s running.

The House of Commons was the first step towards having a fair and free system. However, originally, the House of Commons was composed of knights and burgesses, proving that the system was still not made for the “common” people, as the name might suggest.

Fast-forwarding to 1832, the political landscape becomes extremely different in Britain. Under the Great Reform Act, more of the middle class could now participate in politics. You may say, “Well, the middle class are a miniscule proportion of our country.” Despite this thought, this act was groundbreaking at the time, allowing for fairer representation within the UK.

Multiple similar acts were passed in the 1800s, including Disraeli’s Reform Act of 1867, which doubled the voting public. Even though Britain became more democratic, a shocking setback can be found. The lack of franchise for women before 1918. Not only had women been campaigning for decades before 1918, but countries across the world had also provided women with the vote, the first of which was New Zealand in 1893. After years of fighting and working for the vote, women were deservingly enfranchised. The extension of the franchise in 1918, although providing only some women with the vote, was a large step for British women in politics.

Ten years later, women were provided equal voting rights to men due to the Equal Franchise Act, allowing women to vote at the age of 21 — a great difference from previous years, when women had to be at least 30 and own or be married into land. The voting age continued to change for the general population.

In 1969, the voting age decreased to 18, allowing for a new generation and frame of mind to be included in politics. This act has remained in place ever since. However, another act was introduced, which included many of the same provisions. This act begins to seem old-fashioned as many parties are promising to decrease the voting age to 16 (this move was already introduced in Scotland).

Going back to the topic at hand, however, individuals’ manipulative traits and harmful policies have created a culture of fear within the UK. British citizens seem to be less scared of the risk of war on innocent people and more fearful of the war on our democratic system, which Britons so often take pride in. Demonstrations are held in the streets in protest of Farage. People counter-protest Tommy Robinson’s EDL protests. Parties such as the BNP (British National Party), a fascist political party, have faced intense opposition for their undemocratic policies after constant campaigning from opponents. The people are nervous about what’s to come.

Not only are normal British people campaigning, but our governments and mainstream parties are objecting to the actions and promises of these political threats. Not only did the Liberal Democrats prioritise Reform UK and its leader, but during the Labour Party convention, Keir Starmer controversially claimed that Reform UK are “racist” and “immoral” in relation to its migrant plans.

This comment made headline news nationally and led to a seemingly aggravated response from Nigel Farage. The Reform UK leader stated that Starmer’s claims “will incite and encourage the radical left,” even going as far as to say Keir Starmer’s attitude “threatens the safety” of his political campaigners. Through this claim, it seems that not only is it the left arguing that others are attacking our democratic system, but also the political right.

Right-wing figures have also accused the left of being undemocratic. Politicians such as Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch have argued that Labour and other left-wing groups try to shut down different opinions through cancel culture and limits on free speech. Some have even said that Keir Starmer has stopped open debate within Labour, making the party less democratic.

However, to fully validate these claims, our next step is to understand the evolution of the partisanship of our governance. As recently as the early 1900s, we have seen drastic changes in party majorities and turnouts within the House of Commons. In 1900, the Labour Party was founded. At the time, two parties reigned supreme in Parliament: the Liberals, the working-class option, and the Conservatives, the higher-class option.

Reactions to the rising Labour Party are similar to today’s responses to Reform UK. Some of the most influential politicians, on the level of Farage and Keir Starmer, often alerted the people to a potential Labour-run future. Lloyd George went as far as to announce at a Liberal Party meeting in Cardiff, “I warn you about the Labour Party.”

This threat was clear. Labour gained 42 seats within the first 10 years. Labour also won its first majority in 1945. Before this, Labour had won a minority government in both 1923 and 1929, proving the political influence Labour gained rapidly.

After a strong analysis of this evolution, it is easy to argue that there is a chance in the coming general election, Reform UK may gain much greater power. Yet they could present less of a democratic threat.

Yet on balance, if we look at a more contemporary scene of politics within Britain, UKIP, also led by Farage, was similarly believed to be the next big threat to politics. Holding similar policies, UKIP worried the general population. UKIP, often recognised as the main force for Brexit, frequently held political rallies pressuring the UK government. Although holding extreme levels of influence, UKIP gained only 1 seat in 2015.

Preceding the Brexit vote, resulting in the UK leaving the European Union due to a 51.9 per cent vote in favour of leaving, UKIP gradually began to lose traction. Nigel Farage had left UKIP in 2018. Many claimed UKIP had become extremists (including Farage himself). UKIP candidates had almost halved from 2019 to 2024. The “big bad” political party had found itself back in the shadows of the fringe parties alongside the Reclaim Party and the Workers Party. Just because they lost national political traction, the party did not just dissolve into the abyss. As of writing this, there remains one UKIP councillor on the Kent County Council.

Therefore, arguably, Reform UK are less likely to move forward to a majority or even minority government role. If Farage’s former party failed as well, what would be the outcome of Reform UK? Is it likely to survive? Will its traction last? After looking at UKIP’s fate, it is likely the people will once again resort to the Conservatives and Labour, leaving Nigel Farage’s party in the shadows once again.

But why are people claiming that Reform UK are a threat to democracy? To fully understand this question, we must first look at the Reform UK ideology.

People often claim Reform UK presents far-right ideologies reminiscent of past European authoritarian movements. Due to the parties’ arguably discriminatory policies, they are frequently compared to both German and Italian Fascist histories. Furthermore, friends of Farage, such as Donald Trump, who was quoted as saying for his second term he would be a dictator for ‘day one’, could also be claimed as dictators. This provides further evidence of the risk of an undemocratic system under Reform UK. Why would a party not intending on ridding our country of democracy be allies with politicians who promise undemocratic systems?

However, Reform UK have published a policy in their “Contract With You”, detailing a promise which would “Propose a Comprehensive Free Speech Bill”. While free speech is a fundamental right in a democracy, the issue with this policy is its description. The policy document promised to “Legislate to stop left-wing bias and politically correct ideology that threatens personal freedom and democracy.” 

This description leaves the policy seeming more like a jab at British left-wing politics rather than an effort to make our country better and more democratic. Although it speaks of stopping efforts to ruin our democracy, the policy clearly attempts to stop the more progressive side from having a voice and, therefore, making the reform much less democratic.

Many have also argued that Reform UK’s techniques for getting voters seem to clash with our democratic rights. Nigel Farage’s tactics of targeting certain demographics are used to lure in older voters and more bigoted voters. Farage also utilises charismatic authority to pose as a man of the people: sitting in pubs, making TikToks, speaking with a more “common” dialect and tone, each effort makes him seem like he came from a lower-class upbringing. Despite these hints of “commoner”, Farage went to Dulwich College, “an academically selective independent school”. Private school education is one of the many elitist pasts Farage has.

Even more extremist than the Reform UK leader is Tommy Robinson. Founder of EDL (the English Defence League) and former BNP member, Tommy Robinson, has been arrested multiple times for assault, harassment and contempt of court. Born Stephen Christopher Yaxley in Luton, Tommy Robinson quickly became involved in criminal behaviour. Joining Luton Town MIGs, a football hooligan crew of Luton Town, Yaxley took on the name Tommy Robinson. 

However, Tommy Robinson’s most influential and chaotic creation was in 2009 with the EDL. The EDL protested and often rioted against the British immigration policies. The EDL primarily focused on the arrival of Muslims, claiming they caused more crime and did not follow British values. Claiming these migrants were Islamic extremists, Tommy Robinson argued that the Quran was fundamentally dangerous due to its teachings. According to Tommy Robinson, “Hundreds of verses” instructed Muslims to kill non-believers. The publication of these claims only allowed his movement to grow larger over time (Robinson starred on ‘Good Morning Britain’, debating with Piers Morgan). 

His movement proved manipulative on September 14th. Tommy Robinson organised a march titled the ‘Unite The Kingdom’ march. It was estimated that between 110,000 and 150,000 people joined the march, 24 of whom were arrested. This march was digitally attended by Twitter and Tesla owner Elon Musk. Musk claimed that there was “massive uncontrolled migration”; this claim was widely criticised, considering Elon Musk’s immigration to the USA from South Africa.

These forms of protest, led by Tommy Robinson, present a risk to a free society. Encouraging many to take on the fascist ideology, his actions have made the public anxious about the future of the nation. While reform UK actively publish policies, none have been published by Tommy Robinson himself; however it can be argued that has has anti-democratic beliefs. This is because his discriminatory beliefs and fascist ideas create an environment of manipulation and fear.

Through rights such as freedom of speech, making it hard to police hate crimes and manipulation, democracy has allowed for these “freedom fighters” to live on. 

The BNP hold itself on the far authoritarian right of the political compass. Through their immigration policies, more extreme than Reform UK, and promises to ban “Islamisation”, they have created civil unrest within Britain. Even more controversial, the BNP have connections to and has been supported by members of the Ku Klux Klan, an American white supremacist organisation known for lynching minorities.

Luckily, the BNP have lost nearly all forms of representation in today’s world. BNP have faced great forms of media bans on Facebook and Instagram. Decreases in membership have also prevented election campaigns in favour of the party. BNP have faced election losses. Across the whole of Britain, with their only candidate failing to gain a seat 

With these threats being thrown faster than spears, there could be a better option than our fragile system that has raised these illiberal political celebrities. Socrates, most famously, argued against democratic systems due to their risk of unskilled and unintelligent individuals being a part of decisions. He compared nations to a ship: you would rather have the most skilled individual be the captain rather than the captain be voted in by untrained passengers.

Dictatorships are often the first system many think of when searching for answers to a new system. The system allows for quicker legislative abilities, permitting reactions to newsworthy events, which would come in handy when dealing with activists like Tommy Robinson. Benevolent Dictators also often increase economic quality and produce many other benefits to a nation.

On the other hand, though, dictatorships most famously restrict freedom of speech and press to extreme lengths. Authoritarian regimes, such as North Korea, most notably, remove the freedom of speech of citizens. Furthermore, dictatorships have a history of creating discriminatory regimes, the likes of which this alternative is trying to search for.

An oligarchy relates the furthest to Socrates’ motion. Due to its leadership regulations, only the most skilled individuals will lead; it connects best to the ideals of captain choices. This allows for decisions to be made through careful thought, experience, or knowledge. 

Although this system could present great advantages by encouraging only the best decisions to be made, oligarchies often lead to marginalising some voices over others. Therefore, this system is less fair than what we may have wanted.

A monarch could present itself as the best head of state. Through the system’s non-partisan nature, monarchies often unite nations and provide stability to a country. Monarchies are rare in contemporary politics; however, in the past, monarchies seemed to be a political trend. Ancient Egypt, France and Italy have all held a monarch as the head of the state. Britain is a rare example of a constitutional monarchy, which means the constitution limits the monarch.

Monarchies are held back by the fact that they are often compared to dictatorships, with their one head of state and restrictions on the political lives of citizens. Monarchies also lead to feudalistic societies where a majority of the wealth is owned by the nobles and monarchs. 

What if, however, the actual best option is to keep hold of democracy? Maybe we should not take our democratic society for granted. While democracy has many issues, it allows us to provide a fair system to citizens. Furthermore, during the fear of the Cold War, our strong democratic system was not taken for granted. Anxiety over communist dictatorships and the horror stories told allowed us to understand how lucky we truly are. 

Even more so, during the Second World War, people fought on the front line against the Nazi dictatorship. For thousands of years, we have fought to keep our democratic system instead of being corrupted by the vilest movements.

Time and again I come back to the question: is UK politics over? Well probably not. While parties, such as Reform UK and the BNP, and radical individuals, such as Tommy Robinson, paint themselves as threats to our deserved political system, it is likely we are not losing our country to tyrants any time soon. It is better to say that our democracy is going through a “rough patch”. Just as all democracies/republics do (Germany, Italy, Argentina, etc.) our system is in a sort of metaphorical coming-of-age, habiting new ideas to combat the worse ones. So let’s not cut the system from our politics. Let’s continue to face the threats head on. Let’s continue to improve.