
‘They'd win if it was tomorrow': on the streets of Reform's London
Few people have their finger on the pulse of London politics like Tony Travers, the London School of Economics policy professor, whose crystal ball is unusually sharp in the capital.
'If there was a general election tomorrow, Reform would win [the seat] by a country mile.' He is talking about Hornchurch and Upminster, a parliamentary constituency within the London Borough of Havering that has for decades been a Conservative stronghold. Its demographics are mirrored around the suburban, outer ring of the capital.
On the high streets across Havering the signs of change are everywhere. Shuttered shops, overstretched services and a council wrestling with a £74 million budget shortfall have left many residents disillusioned. For them, the promises of mainstream politics ring hollow — and more and more are looking elsewhere for answers.
Enter Reform UK. Local memberships have soared, according to two of the party's East London representatives, to almost 3,000 in the last year. With one Reform member already in the London Assembly, support in the capital is growing.
• Reform UK would be largest party if general election held today
Debbie Darvey had worked all her life before she suffered two strokes. Now she worries about being able to heat her home in winter. The 67-year-old has never lived anywhere but Harold Hill, near Romford. Of her area she says simply: 'It's like all your childhood memories are slowly disappearing.
'Because they're knocking this down, they're knocking that down, building new things. And it's in a way quite sad.'
She has no problems with the current council administration, which is led by the Havering Residents Association ('they're polite and they're putting solar panels on my roof'), but she will be voting Reform in both the next local and general elections. 'I'm not sure what they do but then I think they can't do no worse than what Labour's doing.'
Nationally the Conservatives have fallen to fourth place in the polls — behind Reform, the Lib Dems and Labour. Another poll, by Find Out Now in May, found Reform were now ahead of the Tories in the capital too.
• A year after landslide, poll makes grim reading for Keir Starmer
'This new London polling is strong for Reform and it's before we even get going,' Nigel Farage said.
Last July, Julia Lopez, Hornchurch and Upminster's Conservative MP, had her majority slashed from 23,308 to just under 2,000, with Reform taking second place. The nearby constituencies of Barking, Dagenham and Rainham and Erith and Thamesmead also saw Reform become the second party.
The area's political history offers a glimpse into the current mood. In the early 2000s the neighbouring borough of Barking and Dagenham saw a surge of support for the British National Party (BNP), which won 12 council seats. While the BNP's influence quickly collapsed, the sentiment it tapped into — frustration with national politics and concerns about immigration — has lingered in the area.
'Many of my constituents have roots in the East End or Essex, and this seat reflects the character of both,' Lopez said. 'They are deeply patriotic, aspirational and hard-working — people who put family and country before all else.'
Gary Mitzi, 60, was a lifelong Conservative voter until he voted Reform UK at the general election and is the personification of the demographic the upstart party is on the road to capturing.
'There's too many lies, people have just had enough now,' Mitzi said. 'I've had enough.
'When I walk around the corner and I hear people talking in their own language I go, 'Are you going to talk English or what, mate?'
'They don't speak English and we are living in England. I want to be out of this country, I don't want to live here. I'll put up with it for another eight years, then I'm moving to Malta.'
The borough's population grew by 10.5% between 2011 and 2021, reaching approximately 262,100, outpacing both London (7.7%) and England (6.6%), driven by families moving out of inner-city areas in search of more affordable housing. In April a petition was launched to secure a £35 million investment for Queen's Hospital after the trust saw 'record-breaking' numbers of patients in March. While Havering remains one of the safest boroughs in London, residents also raised concerns about an increase in antisocial behaviour.
Does Mitzi think Reform can fix it? 'No,' he said. 'No one's going to do it. But we need change.'
The local branch of Reform UK is optimistic about its prospects in Havering's next local elections, held in May of next year.
'We're not parodying national politics,' said Philip Hyde, the chairman of the East London Reform UK branch and a former UKIP councillor — he was dismissed from the party following a 'dispute' with its Havering leader. 'People want to know what's going to affect their lives directly here.
'People are writing to us saying, 'What do I need to do to get involved in politics? They feel that for their children and grandchildren they have to take an interest.'
• Reform UK: People like to back winners so we'll do well in Scotland
Nick Palmer, Reform UK's candidate for Hornchurch and Upminster who beat Labour last July, said even 'school kids want to get involved'.
While it remains to be seen how councils like Kent, Durham and Doncaster will perform — some of the ten councils Reform took control of in May — critics argue that the party's rhetoric far outweighs its capacity to deliver.
It certainly faces significant challenges in translating its hopes into actionable policies.
Ray Morgon, leader of Havering council since 2022 and head of the HRA, is sceptical of the party's promises.
'Reform are making promises of things they will do as a council which they don't have the power to do,' he says. 'They're playing to what people want to hear. But the reality of running the council is very, very different.'
Despite this, the rise of Farage's party in places like Havering, Barking and Dagenham, and Bexley — where Reform got 22 per cent of the vote last July — shows they are 'becoming the main opposition to Labour in many outer London boroughs', according to Travers.
Reform could also find success in the London borough council elections in Bromley, bordering Kent, and Sutton, where the majority of voters backed Leave in the referendum. 'Reform's focus is clear,' Travers said. 'They'll target areas with a high Leave vote and where traditional party loyalties are breaking down.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Cost of supermarket booze set to soar after Labour clobbers brewers with extra £124million in taxes
BREWERS have warned of shop price hikes after being hit with a £124million tax on packaging. Ministers yesterday saddled beer and lager producers with a £192 a tonne charge for recycling their glass bottles. The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which puts them on the hook for the cost of council collection, sorting and recycling, has been branded a 'Bevy Levy'. The British Beer & Pub Association reckons it will put around 16p on a four-pack. Boss Emma McClarkin said: "By heaping a further £124million on brewers - the equivalent of 4p per 330ml bottle – these new fees sabotage the Chancellor's hopes for British businesses and will hit shoppers at the tills. 'To put it mildly, EPR could drive some brewers out of the glass bottle market and heap more costs on pubs which will only endanger jobs and growth. 'This is just not good enough given the barrage of rates and regulations the sector is already grappling with.' Alex MacDonald of the UK Spirits Alliance warned 'punishing fees' for glass will hurt business and raise the price of drinks for consumers. Earlier in the year Jeremy Clarkson used his Sun column to lash out at the Bevy Levy and all the other taxes crippling pubs like his, The Farmer's Dog. EPR makes producers responsible for the full eco lifecycle of their products, footing the cost of councils to collect, sort and recycle waste packaging. Labour plotting blitz on boozers with Budget 'sin tax' raid on pubs as Wes Streeting threatens outdoor smoking ban 1


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
NHS drug charges row hits deadlock
Ministers have failed to agree a crucial deal on NHS drug charges that was meant to be at the centre of a plan to boost growth. Talks on Friday between the Government and pharmaceutical industry bosses ended without an agreement on how much the NHS is able to claw back in rebates on drugs. Ministers had been hoping to be able to address industry complaints of unfairness prior to the publication a strategy for the sector, expected next week. One senior pharmaceutical executive said: 'If a [NHS clawback] deal is not secured, it's a missed opportunity for the life sciences sector plan and one which blocks the UK's ambition to be a life sciences superpower.' Another said that the UK needed to show it wanted to make the scheme competitive again, adding: 'Without that, all the high statements of ambition or new strategies in the world are not going to make the UK a leading life sciences centre.' The Department of Health launched a review of NHS rebates earlier this year under pressure from Donald Trump and the pharmaceutical industry. Ministers said they would take into account the 'concerns of the US president' that countries are unfairly keeping prices low relative to the high drug costs in the American health system. Under the trade agreement signed between the two nations earlier this year, the Government agreed to 'endeavour to improve the overall environment for pharmaceutical companies operating in the UK'. The failure to secure a deal ahead of the publication of the sector strategy follows months of wrangling. Under the current rebate scheme, known as VPAG, pharmaceutical companies have to hand at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS. The scheme cut the drug bill by £3bn last year. However, pharmaceutical bosses have warned the scheme is preventing the launch of cutting-edge medicines in the UK. They have pressed for the UK to cut the rate of rebates into single digits, a level seen elsewhere in Europe. The life sciences strategy is one of several sector plans announced as part of Labour's industrial strategy. Others were published this week. A spokesman for the Government said: 'Economic growth is our number one priority and we're taking decisive action to unlock innovation and drive investment in the UK's world-class pharmaceutical sector. As part of this, we continue to work closely with industry on a rapid review of our voluntary scheme for medicines pricing. 'With our work and investment, we will make sure the next game changers in medicine are developed here in Britain, for the benefit of our health at home and abroad.'


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The prime minister's welfare U-turn is welcome – but not the end of the matter
No doubt there is much relief in No 10, in the Treasury, at the Department for Work and Pensions and in the whips' office, that the welfare reforms crisis is over. That, however, is as nothing to the emotions being felt by the estimated 800,000 people who had been traumatised by the thought of losing around £3,850 in their annual income. The government's own assessment was that some 250,000 of them would thereby be pushed into relative poverty. Many were in despair. Behind the official impact assessments was an unmeasurable quantity of prospective human misery. While the fates of Sir Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, Liz Kendall, Morgan McSweeney and various other Labour figures have, understandably, been the subject of much media attention, it is not too sanctimonious to point out that this whole debate should not be all about the careers of frankly well-heeled politicians and advisers – but those who need help simply to survive. This is about them – and it is a matter of some embarrassment, and shame, that Labour MPs only roused themselves to do anything about the coming disaster when they themselves had been given a shock of their own after their party's dismal performance at the local elections and the Runcorn by-election. Mass redundancies at the next general election loomed into view. Suddenly, their consciences emerged from the inner recesses of their brains, ready for a wrestling match. For a change, the consciences won. It need not have been like this. It is, indeed, incomprehensible that the government was proposing such legislation without concluding their consultations with groups representing disabled people. Despite Ms Kendall's efforts to keep the focus on improving their quality of life by giving people with disabilities the job opportunities they yearn for, the Treasury's rush to find some quick savings in public expenditure gave the exercise a mean-spirited vibe. This was never a promising background for a sensible and sensitive reform of the social security system. There were never any estimates, let alone guarantees, about how many disabled people would be lifted out of poverty into jobs, and the risks were far too great. That is why ministers lost the argument. The result is the messy compromise that has now emerged. Politically, it has averted a parliamentary nightmare, and it will mean that the government gets much of its reforms through. However, the partial U-turn still leaves the government looking foolish, even callous. It is not only the vulnerable people terrified by the now-ditched reforms who will have lost trust in Sir Keir's administration, but the electorate as a whole. Almost a year ago Labour campaigned on 'Change'; no one interpreted that as an assault on the welfare state, with the deeply unpopular means-testing of the pensioners' winter fuel allowance and clumsy changes to universal credit and personal independence payments (PIP). Sir Keir and his colleagues promised an end to the 'chaos and confusion' that reigned under the Conservatives. With three panicky volte-faces in as many weeks (including on winter fuel allowance and the national grooming gangs inquiry), the government is looking incompetent, not in control of events, and divided. In the revised package of measures there are, nonetheless, very welcome improvements. A reform of the points-based system for assessing PIP, a rather crude and dehumanising process, led by the social security minister Sir Stephen Timms, will now be 'co-produced' with disability rights organisations – a major breakthrough. Ms Kendall's excellent schemes to provide personal assistance, coaching and advice to open up job opportunities are to be brought forward. Another valuable enhancement. The 'right to try', widely welcomed and reiterated, will also be a great source of reassurance to people nervous about losing their hard-fought benefits if taking a particular job doesn't work out for them. This also means they don't have to go through another gruelling reassessment for PIP eligibility. What remains, however, is a two-tier regime, where existing claimants have a guarantee that none of their income will be lost, but new applicants for PIP and the health element of universal credit face a potentially much more difficult time. Ms Kendall is right to point out that such a situation is not so unusual when changes to social security are made, such as when the two-child benefit cap was introduced, or the successive postponements in the qualifying age for the state pension. However, that does not make such a system right. If it is unacceptable to drive people with certain types of disability into poverty in 2025, why is it the right thing to do in, say, 2028 or 2029? Ms Kendall also says she wants a system that is fair to people who cannot work, and fair to the taxpayer. That is a fine ideal, but, perhaps through no fault of hers, the right balance is yet to be struck. Clearly, much more serious work remains if the social security system is to be placed on a sustainable basis. It is perfectly true that it must command the confidence of the tax-paying public, who pay for it as well as benefit from it. It will also have to include the biggest single element in the system by far, the state pension. Unavoidably, it also has to be joined to a new approach to paying for adult social care, a challenge successive governments of all parties have ducked for decades. The UK's demographics demand a more comprehensive review of the welfare state, and the creation of something much closer to the cross-party consensus that prevailed for so long after the Beveridge report laid the foundations for social protections in 1942. As yet, there's no sign of that. Just some chaos and confusion.