Nigel Farage’s brand of patriotism has pushed Reform UK to the top of the polls (Image: Getty)

Concern about national security has soared since the war in Iran with leading military and political figures making the case for urgent increases in defence spending.

When voters are asked whether they trust a party – as opposed to a leader – on defence, the Conservatives had a slight edge on 34%. This was ahead of Reform (32%), Labour (30%), the Lib Dems (29%) and the Greens (26%).

Green Party leader Zack Polanski is struggling to win trust on defence (Image: Andrew Milligan/PA Wire)

Arguing that measures including restoring the two-child benefit cap would unlock more than £20billion of extra spending, he said: “Conservatives are proud of what we did in Government to stand by Ukraine, and help keep that country in the fight, avoiding a military disaster for Europe that could ultimately have threatened our shores.”

Former Conservative MP Danny Kruger now leads preparations for a. Reform UK government (Image: Jonathan Buckmaster)

Reform UK’s Danny Kruger said: “After decades of chronic underinvestment in our armed forces by successive governments, it is no surprise that voters no longer trust the Conservatives or Labour and have chosen Nigel Farage as the most trusted party leader on defence. A Reform UK Government will finally put the defence of this country first.

“We will significantly increase defence expenditure by cutting the ballooning benefits bill and ensure our brave armed forces are finally well-equipped and properly funded.”

The Greens were invited to comment.

Nigel Farage and Zack Polanski: The Battle for Trust on National Defence

National defence has become an increasingly important issue in British politics, particularly as European security has come under renewed pressure and parties debate how much Britain should spend on its armed forces. Against that background, a poll reported in May 2026 placed Reform UK leader Nigel Farage ahead of Green Party leader Zack Polanski when voters were asked whom they trusted most on national defence.

The result provides an interesting snapshot of public opinion, but the language of the headline claiming that Farage “crushes” Polanski goes beyond what a poll can establish. A survey can measure levels of trust at a particular moment; it cannot demonstrate that one politician has permanently settled the political argument over defence.

According to reporting based on the polling, Farage was trusted on national defence by 32% of voters, putting him ahead of several other party leaders, including Polanski. The same report said that fewer than one in four voters trusted the Green leader on the defence of the realm.

The figures are significant because defence has historically been one of the more difficult policy areas for the Green Party.

Polanski has attempted to broaden the Greens’ political appeal beyond traditional environmental issues, describing his approach as “ecopopulism” and placing greater emphasis on living standards, wealth inequality and public services. But defence and Britain’s relationship with NATO remain areas where the party faces difficult questions.

In an interview reported by The Irish Times, Polanski said that he was not advocating Britain leaving NATO immediately, while acknowledging that the alliance represented a difficult issue for the Greens.

That position reflects a broader tension within Green politics.

The party has traditionally been associated with opposition to militarism and a preference for diplomatic solutions to international disputes. At the same time, Britain’s security environment has changed considerably. Russia’s war against Ukraine, concerns about European security and debates about the future of NATO have forced political parties to explain how they would protect the country while maintaining their broader foreign-policy principles.

For Farage and Reform UK, defence provides an opportunity to emphasise themes that are already central to the party’s political identity.

Farage has generally argued for a stronger emphasis on national sovereignty, border security and Britain’s ability to defend itself. Reform has also sought to distinguish itself from the established parties by arguing that successive governments have failed to maintain sufficient military capability.

The question of defence spending has consequently become an important part of the wider political debate.

The previous government under Keir Starmer announced increases in defence spending and published the 2025 Strategic Defence Review. The review described the international security environment as more dangerous and unpredictable than at any point since the Cold War, highlighting Russia, nuclear risks and cyber threats among the challenges facing Britain.

But the scale and speed of additional defence investment have remained contested.

In June 2026, Defence Secretary John Healey resigned amid disagreements over the government’s Defence Investment Plan. Contemporary reporting said Healey believed the proposed settlement did not go far enough, while the government defended its overall approach to defence spending.

The dispute illustrates why defence cannot be reduced simply to a question of whether a politician is “strong” or “weak” on security.

There are several different questions involved.

How much should Britain spend?

How quickly should military spending increase?

Should additional money go towards personnel, equipment, nuclear deterrence, cyber capabilities, intelligence or conventional forces?

How should Britain cooperate with NATO allies?

And how should higher defence expenditure be balanced against healthcare, pensions, education and other public spending?

Political parties can agree that Britain needs effective defence while disagreeing substantially about how that objective should be achieved.

For Farage, the advantage of the defence issue is that it fits naturally into Reform’s broader argument about national sovereignty.

His political rhetoric frequently focuses on the idea that Britain should have greater control over its borders, laws and strategic decisions. A stronger defence policy can therefore be presented as another part of a wider programme centred on national independence.

Polanski approaches the issue from a different political tradition.

The Green Party has historically placed greater emphasis on international cooperation, diplomacy, climate policy and opposition to military escalation. Polanski has attempted to reshape the party’s political message, but defence remains an area in which the Greens must reconcile their traditional positions with the concerns of voters who see national security as a central responsibility of government.

The polling result therefore matters not only because of the difference between Farage and Polanski, but because it illustrates how difficult it can be for parties to establish credibility on issues outside their traditional areas of strength.

It is also important to distinguish between trust in a politician and support for their party.

A voter may trust one politician more than another on defence without intending to vote for that person’s party. Similarly, a voter may prefer a particular defence policy while disagreeing with a politician on immigration, taxation, healthcare or the economy.

The broader polling evidence demonstrates why such distinctions matter.

Recent Opinium polling has shown Farage receiving negative ratings across several leadership characteristics, including trustworthiness and being trusted to take major decisions. In the September 2026 survey, Farage’s net score for trustworthiness was -33, while his score for being trusted to take big decisions was -27. Polanski also recorded a negative overall rating, at -21.

Those figures do not contradict the earlier defence finding. They measure different questions.

A politician can have an advantage on a particular policy area while receiving weaker overall ratings.

This is especially relevant to national defence because public attitudes towards military issues can be highly dependent on circumstances.

Research published by Opinium during the Iran conflict found that public support for military action was strongest in circumstances involving direct threats to Britain or British forces. Forty-seven per cent supported UK airstrikes if Iran attacked British territory, while 42% supported them if British military forces overseas were attacked. Support was considerably lower for scenarios involving threats to shipping or attacks on civilian targets elsewhere in the Middle East.

That suggests that voters may distinguish between defensive action and offensive intervention.

For British political leaders, this creates a complicated communications challenge. It is possible to advocate stronger armed forces while remaining cautious about military intervention abroad.

Farage’s political positioning has generally placed greater emphasis on military preparedness and national sovereignty. Polanski’s political approach has placed greater emphasis on diplomacy and international cooperation. The difference between those approaches is therefore not simply about whether Britain should have a capable military; it also concerns how military power should be used.

The debate is likely to remain important as Britain responds to a changing European security environment.

NATO allies have increased pressure on members to strengthen defence capabilities, while governments across Europe have reconsidered military spending following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Britain must also make decisions about its nuclear deterrent, naval capabilities, air power, army readiness, cyber security and defence industry.

These decisions involve long-term commitments.

They cannot be resolved through polling alone.

The May 2026 figures nevertheless provide useful evidence about how voters viewed political leaders at that particular point. Farage’s 32% trust figure on national defence, as reported at the time, suggests that Reform had established a degree of credibility among voters on an issue where the party has sought to distinguish itself.

For Polanski, the challenge is different.

If the Greens want to become a broader governing force, they must persuade voters that their approach to security is compatible with the responsibilities of national government. That does not necessarily mean abandoning Green principles. It does mean providing clear answers about NATO, defence spending, Britain’s armed forces and the circumstances in which military force should be used.

For Farage, meanwhile, the challenge is to convert trust on one issue into credibility across the wider range of responsibilities associated with government.

Defence is only one part of a national political programme.

Voters also judge parties on the economy, public services, taxation, immigration, housing and the cost of living. Strong ratings on one issue cannot automatically be transferred to every other policy area.

The headline therefore captures a genuine political contrast but simplifies a more complicated picture.

Farage and Polanski represent substantially different approaches to defence and Britain’s role in the world. Polling reported in May 2026 showed Farage ahead of Polanski on voter trust over national defence, with 32% saying they trusted him on the issue.

But the figures are a snapshot rather than a permanent verdict.

Britain’s security environment continues to evolve, and political leaders will be judged not only by what they say about defence but by how clearly they explain their priorities, how credible their spending plans are and how they would respond when difficult security decisions arise.

The battle for public trust on national defence is therefore unlikely to be settled by one poll. It will continue to depend on events, policy choices and the competing visions that Britain’s political parties put before voters.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.