Time is surely up for the pitiful PM with dissent growing across the country and within his party (Image: Getty)

That they are being held at all is something of a miracle because Labour wanted to kick democracy into the long grass by cancelling them.

And that is the central message of political prophet Nigel Farage who could deliver Labour less a bloody nose and more likely put the party in an induced coma in seven weeks’ time.

Make no mistake, elections on May 7 – albeit local – are a referendum on Sir Keir Starmer, his Labour government, and the appetite for something hitherto untried: A populist pulling the levers of power.

Britain’s saviour? Mr Farage says the May 7 elections are a chance to fix ‘broken Britain’ (Image: Getty)

On January 22 the Government announced elections in 29 local authorities scheduled for May 7 would be postponed. But in another screeching U-turn on February 16, it then announced they would go ahead.

The shambles epitomises the dithering and vacillating of those who are meant to be running the country.

And now even the unions – upon whom Labour relies – think time is up.

Unite’s general secretary Sharon Graham believes the party will be “decimated” in the upcoming local elections and should “hang their heads in shame” over the handling of the Birmingham bin strike, which has seen Britain’s second city fester under a fetid deluge of detritus.

The strike has been raging for more than a year.

“We are in one of the most significant strikes in decades,” she said. “An attack from a Labour council under a Labour government. Labour should hang their heads in shame. They are an absolute disgrace.”

Stuttering Starmer and the assortment of jesters running this country have got Britain stuck in a doom loop of perpetual crisis having failed on a promise to stop migration crisis and presided over any number of Commons calamities including, but not exclusive to, the Winter Fuel Payment debacle, inheritance tax fiasco, and two tax-grabbing Budgets that snatched £66bn.

Under Labour the tax burden is set to reach an all-time high of 38% of GDP by 2030-31. This cannot continue.

And it is why Mr Farage is delivering an Easter divination: This is your chance to send a message.

Spineless Starmer has blown it and one man thinks it’s time to put British people first

Nigel Farage’s argument that British politics needs to put domestic voters first has become one of the defining themes of Reform UK’s campaign strategy.

The language surrounding that argument has often been sharply critical of Labour, with Farage repeatedly portraying the party as more concerned with government spending, immigration and international commitments than with the immediate pressures facing British households.

The original political argument behind this headline centred on the period when Sir Keir Starmer was Prime Minister and Reform was preparing for the May 2026 local elections. Farage presented those elections as an opportunity for voters to register their dissatisfaction with the Labour government and to support his party’s alternative.

But Britain’s political circumstances have since changed substantially.

Starmer is no longer Prime Minister. Andy Burnham became Labour leader and Prime Minister in July 2026, while the Conservatives and Reform continue to compete for voters on the right.

Even so, the central question raised by Farage’s campaign remains relevant: what does it mean to “put British people first”, and how would Reform’s policies attempt to achieve it?

Farage’s central political argument

Farage has repeatedly used the phrase “put British people first” when discussing Reform’s approach to taxation, welfare, immigration and public spending.

For Reform, the argument is that government resources should be concentrated more heavily on British citizens and permanent residents rather than being used to provide benefits or services to people who have recently arrived in the country.

The party has also linked the argument to taxation.

In one major policy package, Reform proposed reducing or restricting access to certain benefits for foreign nationals, increasing the immigration health surcharge and reducing overseas aid. The party claimed these measures could save around £25 billion annually.

Farage argued that such savings could reduce the pressure for tax increases on British households.

However, these figures are Reform’s estimates rather than independently established savings. Labour disputed the calculations and argued that some of the proposals could create additional economic and legal consequences.

That disagreement illustrates an important feature of the debate: the political objective may be clear, but the economic consequences of achieving it remain contested.

Immigration at the centre of the debate

Immigration has been one of the most important issues separating Reform from Labour.

Farage has argued that Britain needs much tighter controls on migration and a substantial reduction in the number of people entering the country.

Research from More in Common and UK in a Changing Europe found that immigration was particularly important to Reform supporters. In the survey, 61 per cent of Reform supporters identified levels of immigration among the country’s most important issues, compared with 30 per cent of the wider public.

The same research found that 86 per cent of people intending to vote Reform believed the government should accept fewer immigrants annually, compared with 58 per cent across the public as a whole.

Those figures help explain why immigration has remained central to Reform’s political message.

They also demonstrate why Farage believes there is an electoral constituency for policies explicitly framed around national preference.

But the issue is not simply about political messaging.

Immigration affects the labour market, public services, population growth, housing demand and tax revenues. Reducing migration therefore involves economic trade-offs as well as political choices.

Reform’s welfare proposals

Another major part of Farage’s argument concerns welfare.

Reform has proposed restricting access to certain benefits for foreign nationals and has argued that the welfare system should give greater priority to British citizens.

The party’s 2025 proposals included ending Universal Credit eligibility for foreign nationals, including EU citizens with settled status, after a transitional period. Reform claimed this could save £6 billion annually.

There is, however, a significant legal complication.

EU citizens with settled status obtained rights under the UK’s post-Brexit arrangements, meaning that changes to their benefit entitlement could affect Britain’s relationship with the European Union and potentially British citizens living elsewhere in Europe.

Reform has argued that it would seek to renegotiate those arrangements and, if necessary, take unilateral action.

Critics have warned that such measures could provoke retaliation or create additional economic costs.

Consequently, the debate is not simply about whether welfare should be restricted. It also concerns the international agreements governing the rights of British and European citizens.

What happened to Starmer’s government?

The original criticism of Starmer was made against the background of widespread political dissatisfaction with his government.

Farage argued that Labour had failed to deliver on several major promises, particularly concerning living standards, immigration and public services.

Reform’s campaign materials ahead of the May 2026 local elections portrayed the contest as an opportunity to challenge Labour’s record.

The party described the elections as a chance to “put the British people first” and argued that its candidates could begin changing the way local government operated.

But local elections have their own dynamics.

Voters may judge councils on bin collections, planning, local taxation, roads and other services rather than simply expressing an opinion about Westminster.

That means Reform’s performance in local elections cannot automatically be treated as a direct measure of national support.

Nevertheless, the results gave Reform a significantly expanded presence in local government and strengthened Farage’s argument that voters were willing to consider alternatives to the traditional parties.

The political landscape has changed

The biggest complication for anyone analysing the original headline today is that Starmer is no longer in Downing Street.

Andy Burnham became Prime Minister in July 2026 after taking over the Labour leadership. In his first major statements, Burnham emphasised economic stability, the cost of living and longer-term reform of government spending.

That means Farage’s political argument has had to evolve.

The target is no longer simply Starmer’s Labour government.

Reform now faces a political environment in which Labour has a new leader, the Conservatives remain an important rival on the right, and voters are increasingly exposed to competing arguments about taxation, immigration, public services and Britain’s relationship with Europe.

The fundamental political competition has therefore widened.

“British people first” has different meanings

The phrase itself is politically powerful because different voters can interpret it in different ways.

For Reform supporters, it can mean lower immigration, tighter welfare eligibility, reduced foreign aid and policies intended to reduce the tax burden on British workers.

For critics, however, the same phrase can raise questions about equal treatment, Britain’s international obligations and the contribution made by migrants to the economy and public services.

These competing interpretations cannot be resolved simply through political slogans.

For example, migrants can represent both a cost and a source of economic activity. They may use public services while also working, paying taxes and filling jobs in sectors experiencing labour shortages.

Similarly, foreign aid represents government spending but can also serve diplomatic, humanitarian and strategic objectives.

The political question is therefore ultimately about priorities and trade-offs.

Farage’s wider challenge

There is another issue facing Reform.

The party’s success depends not only on attracting voters dissatisfied with Labour but also on convincing Conservative voters that Reform can provide a credible alternative.

Recent polling has shown that the contest between Reform and the Conservatives remains competitive, rather than settled.

That matters because a fragmented right-wing vote could produce very different electoral results from a situation in which one party consolidates most anti-Labour support.

Reform therefore needs to demonstrate that its policies can operate beyond protest politics.

It must explain how its proposals would affect public finances, businesses, public services and Britain’s international relationships.

The party’s rapid growth has created expectations that it must now provide detailed answers to questions that are easier to avoid when a party is primarily campaigning against its opponents.

The question Britain faces

The original headline presented Farage as the politician ready to “put British people first” after Starmer had supposedly failed.

That is fundamentally a political argument rather than an established fact.

There is clear evidence that immigration, taxation, the cost of living and public services are important concerns for many voters. There is also evidence that Reform supporters place particularly strong emphasis on reducing immigration and prioritising British citizens.

But whether Reform’s proposed solutions would produce the outcomes it claims is a separate question.

The same applies to Labour and the Conservatives.

As Britain moves towards the next general election, voters will ultimately have to compare competing proposals on taxation, spending, immigration, housing, public services and economic growth.

Farage’s message is already clear.

He wants Reform to be the party that speaks most directly to voters who believe government has neglected their interests.

The challenge now is turning that message into a detailed governing programme — one capable of demonstrating not merely that British people should come first, but how the policies proposed in their name would work in practice.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.