Nigel Farage is showing up Labour as a party of the past (Image: PA)
Reform finds itself on the right side of the foreign policy argument yet again. Amid dithering and weakness over both the Chagos Islands and aiding the Americans when it comes to Iran, Nigel Farage has shown consistency. The Reform chief has been a strident critic of the Chagos great Chinese takeaway – whereby the British Indian Ocean territory will be handed over to China ally the Mauritius at British taxpayers’ expense – while previously attending rallies in support of Iranian reformists. Following events in the Middle East, Farage rightly said Iranian refugees – if they manifest – should be housed in neighbouring countries, not in the UK, which has more than taken in its fair share of asylum seekers.
Moreover, he said, many liberal-minded Iranians who left their country would be minded to return if a new liberal government was in place. Reform now has a golden opportunity to reshape UK foreign and defence policy, especially by re-energising an increasingly woke Foreign Office, recalibrating post-Brexit Britain ‘east of Suez’, and boosting our oft-neglected armed forces.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Farage could do much worse than beginning to rebuild ties with the Commonwealth, not least the CANZUK countries of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, as well as other Realms with which we share a king, such as Jamaica.
Reform’s flagship immigration plans tie well into foreign policy, as can be seen in recent statements over Iran. Meanwhile renewed Commonwealth ties could have both an economic and a defence focus.
We share a commander-in-chief with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and worked as one unified Commonwealth military in the post-war occupation of Japan as well as during the conflict in Korea.
Intelligence tie-ups with these countries can build upon the existing Five Eyes deal with the CANZUK four plus America. Let’s also not forget trade: how bountiful are opportunities in Australia and Canada versus Belgium and the Netherlands?
Rather than looking back to a moribund and sclerotic EU (note the lily-livered response to the Iran war), Reform can build something great with our Commonwealth brethren, including giants like India, as well as plucky Singapore.
Indeed, renewed Commonwealth ties would help stem the tide of mass immigration since most immigrants to Britain still come from Commonwealth countries. Working closer with Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka means we have better cooperation on migrant control and returns.
Post-Brexit Britain deserves more than this inept Labour government with its backwards-looking foreign policy. Reform of course must fix the border, crime and economy, but that goes hand-in-hand with new global outreach. As opinion polls continue to put Reform in the lead, roll on the May elections and beyond.
Backwards Labour Are Showing Reform UK Are Right-Thinking and Forward-Looking
The political divide between Labour and Reform UK has become increasingly visible as the two parties offer sharply different approaches to the future direction of Britain.
Supporters of Reform UK argue that Labour’s policies represent an outdated approach to government, taxation, regulation and public services, while Reform presents itself as a party prepared to challenge established political assumptions. Labour, by contrast, argues that its programme is designed to modernise the country, strengthen workers’ rights and address long-standing economic and social problems.
The argument over which approach is genuinely “forward-looking” is therefore not simply a disagreement over political language. It reflects fundamentally different ideas about the role of the state, the economy and Britain’s relationship with Europe.
A clash over the direction of Britain
Since Reform UK emerged as a major political force, its leadership has attempted to position the party as an alternative to the traditional Conservative-Labour competition.
Nigel Farage and other Reform politicians have frequently argued that Westminster politics has become too cautious and that governments have failed to address issues such as immigration, taxation, economic growth and public-sector reform.
Labour’s approach is different. The government’s programme has included changes to employment law, electoral legislation and the organisation of government, alongside measures aimed at tackling inequality and strengthening workers’ protections.
For example, the government’s latest timetable for its Plan to Make Work Pay shows that further employment-law measures are being introduced during 2026 and 2027. These include stronger trade-union rights, changes to workplace access and additional protections for workers.
Supporters see those measures as modernisation. Critics see them as additional regulation that could increase costs and obligations for employers.
That disagreement illustrates why the description of either party as “forward-looking” depends heavily on the political values being applied.
Reform’s argument for change
Reform’s case is based partly on the idea that Britain’s political establishment has failed to adapt to changing public expectations.
The party has made immigration one of its central issues, alongside tax reductions, deregulation and changes to the way government operates.
Its supporters argue that more radical policies are necessary because previous governments have not solved problems that have persisted for years.
This argument has gained attention as Reform has expanded beyond its original electoral base and recruited politicians with backgrounds in other parties.
Former Conservative figures have joined the organisation, while former Labour politicians and councillors have also moved towards Reform.
That recruitment has allowed Reform to present itself as a broader political movement rather than simply a protest vehicle.
However, the party’s expansion has also generated questions about whether politicians arriving from different traditions can maintain a coherent programme.
Labour’s case for modernisation
Labour rejects the idea that its programme is backward-looking.
Its government has described several reforms as attempts to modernise Britain.
Employment law is one example.
The government’s Plan to Make Work Pay aims to extend employment protections and introduce changes covering areas including trade-union rights, harassment and employment tribunals.
The government also argues that stronger workplace rights can improve job security and productivity.
Critics, including businesses and opponents of Labour, have raised concerns about the potential costs of additional regulation.
Neither interpretation should be confused with the underlying policy itself.
The legislation and implementation timetable are factual. Whether those changes constitute progress or excessive regulation is a political judgment.
Electoral reform provides another dividing line
Another important area of disagreement concerns Britain’s electoral system.
The Labour government’s Representation of the People Bill would lower the voting age to 16 for UK parliamentary elections, introduce automatic electoral registration mechanisms and change aspects of voter identification and political-finance regulation.
The House of Lords Library has summarised the bill as including measures on electoral registration, voter ID, political donations, campaign transparency and the powers of the Electoral Commission.
Labour presents these measures as modernising democratic participation and strengthening safeguards.
Opponents have questioned elements of the proposals, including the decision to extend the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds and aspects of automatic registration.
Again, the disagreement is fundamentally about political philosophy.
One side sees expanded participation and updated electoral administration as necessary for a modern democracy. Another may view some of those changes as unnecessary or potentially problematic.
Immigration remains a major fault line
Few issues demonstrate the difference between Labour and Reform more clearly than immigration.
Reform has proposed substantially tougher immigration policies, including major changes to asylum and settlement arrangements.
Labour’s position is also focused on reducing irregular migration, but its approach combines enforcement with changes to the asylum system and international cooperation.
Labour’s own policy document argues that the previous Conservative government left behind a large asylum backlog and says the Labour government has reduced it. It also attacks Reform’s proposals on indefinite leave to remain.
Reform disputes Labour’s broader approach and argues that much stronger measures are required.
This is one area where political descriptions such as “backward” or “forward-looking” can obscure the substantive disagreement.
The real question is what objectives each policy is designed to achieve and what consequences it may produce.
Economic policy is another dividing line
Economic policy may prove equally important.
The UK fiscal outlook remains challenging, with the House of Lords Library noting high borrowing costs, spending pressures and a tax burden expected to remain historically high.
Reform has generally argued for lower taxes, reduced regulation and a smaller state.
Labour has generally placed greater emphasis on public investment, public services and employment protections.
Those approaches reflect different assumptions about how economic growth should be generated.
Reform’s supporters argue that reducing the tax and regulatory burden can encourage investment and entrepreneurship.
Labour argues that government intervention and investment can provide the infrastructure, skills and public services required for long-term growth.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about whether Britain needs change. Both sides claim to support change, but they disagree over what needs changing and how quickly it should happen.
The question of what counts as progress
This is where the phrase “right-thinking and forward-looking” becomes particularly contentious.
A policy can be described as modern because it introduces new technology or changes an established system. But novelty alone does not demonstrate that a policy will produce better outcomes.
Similarly, maintaining an existing institution does not necessarily mean refusing to modernise.
The important questions concern evidence, implementation and results.
That distinction matters in the current political debate because both Labour and Reform are presenting themselves as agents of change.
Labour’s reforms to employment law and electoral administration are examples of institutional change.
Reform’s proposals for immigration, taxation and government spending represent a different model of change.
The electorate is ultimately being presented with competing visions rather than a simple choice between “change” and “no change.”
Reform’s growing challenge to the political establishment
Recent polling demonstrates why the debate has become politically significant.
An Ipsos poll conducted between September 10 and 15, 2026, put Labour four points ahead of Reform UK, while also showing a competitive political environment heading into party conference season.
The numbers are a snapshot of opinion at a particular moment, not a prediction of a future election result.
They nevertheless demonstrate that Reform’s challenge is now part of mainstream British political competition.
The party’s supporters can therefore argue that its ideas deserve serious consideration, while Labour can point to its own programme and argue that it represents a different form of reform.
A battle over political language
The phrase “backwards Labour” is itself a political argument rather than an objective description.
Labour supporters would reject it, pointing to changes in workers’ rights, electoral law, economic policy and government organisation as evidence that the party is attempting to modernise the country.
Reform supporters would make the opposite case, arguing that Labour’s higher taxes, expanded regulation and approach to immigration represent continuation rather than transformation.
Both arguments can be examined through specific policies rather than slogans.
The government’s employment reforms are documented. The Representation of the People Bill is documented. Reform’s proposals on immigration and taxation are documented.
What remains contested is whether those policies amount to progress.
Britain faces competing visions
The deeper issue is that Labour and Reform are increasingly offering different definitions of what Britain needs.
Labour’s approach places greater emphasis on strengthening institutions, protecting workers and expanding participation in democratic processes.
Reform’s approach places greater emphasis on reducing the size of government, lowering taxes, tightening immigration controls and challenging established political assumptions.
Neither approach can simply be labelled “the future” without making a political judgment.
What can be established is that both parties are seeking significant changes, but in very different directions.
For voters trying to understand the argument, the most useful distinction is therefore between rhetoric and policy.
Calling one party “backward” and another “forward-looking” communicates a political message, but it does not explain how either programme would work.
The more revealing questions are concrete ones: How much should the state spend? What level of taxation is sustainable? How should immigration be controlled? What employment rights should workers have? Who should be entitled to vote? How much power should trade unions have? And what role should government play in economic growth?
Those questions sit at the heart of the growing Labour-Reform divide.
The political battle is consequently about more than personalities or slogans. It is a dispute over what kind of state Britain should have and what kind of changes should define the country’s next political era.
Reform says its willingness to challenge established assumptions makes it forward-looking. Labour says its programme represents modernisation through institutional and social reform.
The evidence lies in the policies themselves, their implementation and, ultimately, their measurable consequences.