
New polling shows Reform is winning over Britain's Christians
For the one-in-three adults in Britain who are Christian, this identity remains an important influence on their political behaviour. New polling, published here for the first time, shows how Reform UK is disrupting our previous understanding of how Christians vote in British elections.
The relationship between Britain's Christian communities and the major political parties goes back centuries. The Conservative party has been very close to English Anglicanism since its emergence in the mid-19th century. Catholics and free-church Protestants (such as Baptists and Methodists) have tended towards the Labour and Liberal/Liberal Democrat parties. Even as Britain has become more secular, these relationships have persisted.
Anglicans, for example, have tended to vote Conservative even when the party was in dire straits. In the 2024 election, 39% of Anglicans voted Tory even as the party's national vote share fell to 24%.
Since the 1980s and particularly in elections since 2015, however, we have started to see changes to the Christian vote. The traditional Catholic attachment to Labour has deteriorated, as has Labour's appeal to other Christian communities such as Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians.
Instead, driven by the rising salience of social values (attitudes towards immigration, social change and national identity) as a determinant of political support, the socially conservative leanings of some Christians of all stripes has led to increased support for the Conservatives. And those who traditionally did so – the Anglicans – have become even more supportive. The result has been a steady coalescing of the Christian vote behind the Conservatives.
But now, new polling by YouGov (on June 23-24 2025) for the University of Exeter reveals that this realignment is being disrupted by the growing popularity of Reform UK.
Instead of asking who people would vote for tomorrow, a nationally representative sample of 2,284 adults was asked how likely they were to ever vote for each major party, on a scale from zero (very unlikely) to ten (very likely).
While not the same as a direct question about how someone would vote in an election, the likelihood question provides a much richer measure of the strength of their support for all of the major parties.
Among Anglicans, Labour remains deeply unpopular: over half gave the party a 0. In contrast, the Conservatives still enjoy strong support among Anglicans, with 35% giving them a vote likelihood of seven or higher – the kind of support associated with voting for the party in an election.
Reform, however, has caught up. Despite only 15% of Anglicans voting Reform in 2024, 38% now rate their likelihood of voting for the party as high. That's the same as the proportion who are strongly opposed to Reform – showing that while the party polarises Anglicans more than the Conservatives, Reform could win as much Anglican support as the Tories in an election.
Catholics show a similar trend. Labour's traditional support is eroding: 40% of Catholics said they had zero likelihood of voting Labour, while 29% are strong supporters. As with Conservatives for the Anglican vote, Reform is almost level-pegging with Labour for the Catholic vote at 28%. It has even supplanted the Conservatives, of whom 22% of Catholics are strong supporters.
It is not yet clear why this is happening. The distinction of Christian (and non-Christian) voting patterns is not an artefact of age – there are many studies that prove this is the case.
It may be that Reform's stances on issues such as immigration resonate with Christians' concerns to the extent that they are willing to set aside their historic party loyalties. Or it may be that Christians are as prone as other British voters to turn to Reform out of frustration with the performances of Labour and the Conservatives in office.
Swing voters and party competition
This data also shows the extent to which voters' support for parties overlaps or is exclusive. In other words, which voters have a high vote likelihood for only one party (and so are likely committed to backing that party in an election), which do not have such high likelihoods for any party (and so will probably not vote at all), and which have similarly high likelihoods for more than one party (effectively swing voters, persuadable one way or the other).
Among the religiously unaffiliated, 29% aren't strong supporters of any party. For Catholics, it's 26%. Anglicans are more politically anchored, however, with only 20% in this category.
While traditionally, we would have expected this to reflect Anglicans' greater tendency to support the Tories, only 17% of Anglicans are strong supporters of only that party, compared with 21% who are firmly behind Reform. These aren't swing voters; they've switched sides.
A further 12% of Anglicans have high vote likelihoods for both the Tories and Reform. These are swing voters that the two parties could realistically expect to win over.
Catholics are even more fragmented. Only 13% are strong supporters of Labour alone, along with 12% and 17% who are strong supporters of the Conservatives and Reform alone, respectively.
Few Catholics are torn between Labour and the other parties, but 5% are swing voters between the Conservatives and Reform: the Tories' gradual winning over of Catholics over the last 50 years is also being challenged by the appeal of Reform.
The party has provided a socially conservative alternative to the Conservatives, with the result that the Christian vote has become more fragmented. The Tories are no longer the main beneficiaries of Labour's loss of its traditional Catholic vote.
In addition, Reform is as popular as the Conservatives among Anglicans, and as popular as Labour among Catholics. This suggests it is appealing across the traditional denominational divide more successfully than either of the major parties.
If there is to be a single party that attracts the bulk of Britain's Christian support, at this point it is far more likely to be Reform than anyone else.
Hashtags

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


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Minister 'weaponising' Savile will make Labour MPs queasy - but there's a bigger risk
Why you can trust Sky News Sometimes governments blindly idle into political fights and sometimes they go windmilling in with purpose. The extraordinary row picked by Peter Kyle on Sky News on Tuesday is most definitely the later of these two. The science secretary's reference to Jimmy Savile was no slip of the tongue. Ministers seem to believe Reform UK has made a misjudgement in pledging to scrap internet safety laws, given the massive unease across the country about what children are viewing online. As a result, Kyle is trying to point at their position by stoking a spat with (some would say) inflammatory language that sucks up media attention. It's not exactly a new technique. Think back to 2023 and Labour did something very similar when it ran attack ads accusing Rishi Sunak of not wanting to lock up child abusers - in a bid to draw attention to the criminal justice system. Go even further back, and it's essentially the same strategy employed on the red Brexit bus in 2016 with its pledge to divert money from the EU to the NHS. All heavily disputable claims that are made to start a row and move the spotlight onto a politically convenient topic. But the risk inherent in tactics like this is that it makes some on your own side feel a little icky. The last politician to invoke Jimmy Savile as part of a political attack was Boris Johnson when he accused Sir Keir Starmer of failing to investigate the serial child abuser when he was the country's head prosecutor. That led to the resignation of the then prime minister's top policy aide. There will be plenty in Labour who feel similarly queasy about a cabinet minister weaponising one of the country's most notorious paedophiles to lay into an opposition party. The bigger risk though is whether Peter Kyle will really emerge victorious from this fight. Nigel Farage is going for the Online Safety Act in part because it fits with his party's narrative around mainstream politics trying to silence the concerns of ordinary people. Those disenfranchised sections of society are a key group of voters that Reform are trying to reach. Whether they are outweighed by those put off the party by its recent pronouncements remains to be seen.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Nigel Farage and ‘lawless Britain': dangerous hyperbole has real-life consequences
During last year's general election campaign, Reform UK settled on 'Britain is broken' as a slogan. This summer, intending to dominate the news agenda during the long Westminster recess, Nigel Farage has decided to ramp up the dystopian rhetoric. 'Broken' has morphed into 'lawless', as Mr Farage tours the country deploying language reminiscent of the 'American carnage' speech delivered by Donald Trump at his first inauguration in 2017. Unfounded claims of a huge rise in crime have been breezily tossed out to bolster the assertion that Britain is 'facing nothing short of societal collapse'. The crisis of lawlessness on the streets, wrote Mr Farage in a recent article for the Daily Mail, was being compounded by the government-sponsored arrival of 'droves of unvetted men into our towns and cities'. Commenting on recent protests outside an Epping hotel accommodating asylum seekers, after a resident was charged with sexually assaulting a local teenage girl, he remarked that the country was close to 'civil disobedience on a vast scale'. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales – which Mr Farage chooses to ignore but which is the most robust source of relevant evidence – incidents of theft, criminal damage and violence have been in long‑term decline since the 1990s. But Reform's leader is more interested in sinister mood music than data, as he seeks to foment a feelbad factor. His aim is to portray a country in which disinterested elites preside over a law and order crisis intimately connected to immigration, and where there is a yearning for an authoritarian response along the lines suggested by Mr Farage. Reform's pledge to repeal the Online Safety Act, made on Monday at a 'Britain is lawless' press conference, underlined its willingness to risk the further pollution of public discourse by disinformation and hate speech. As the chief constable of Essex reminded Mr Farage last week, after he falsely alleged that police had driven counter-protesters to the site of the Epping hotel, inflammatory talk has real‑life consequences. In an echo of last summer's riots after the appalling murder of three young girls in Southport, asylum seekers have reported being chased and attacked in the town. Having in many cases fled violent and unstable situations elsewhere, they now fear for their safety again. In Essex, and elsewhere in the country, far-right groups are seeking to create the conditions for another conflagration. These are worrying developments. But Britain's social fabric is not unravelling and the country is not on the verge of widespread civil conflict. A year ago, the vast majority of citizens backed a hardline response to the scenes of disorder that took place. Nevertheless, the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, was right to argue last week that much more needs to be done to enhance social cohesion in places buffeted by change and starved of resources. The problem with Mr Farage is that his hyperbolic claims are designed to heighten and sharpen tensions rather than truly address them. For a party that aspires to govern and claims to be in the mainstream, fuelling a sense of insecurity and anger in this way is deeply irresponsible. Britain is still a long way from being Mr Trump's America, and Reform's cynical opportunism may fail to yield the political dividends hoped for. But we have been served with another reminder of the darkness at the heart of Mr Farage's politics. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
UK will recognise Palestine in September unless Israel ‘takes steps' over Gaza
The Prime Minister recalled his senior team of ministers from their summer recess to discuss the situation in Gaza, where the population is facing a mounting famine, according to warnings from the United Nations. A readout of the Cabinet meeting issued by Downing Street said Sir Keir told ministers 'now was the right time to move this position' on the two-state solution. The readout continued: 'He said that because of the increasingly intolerable situation in Gaza and the diminishing prospect of a peace process towards a two-state solution, now was the right time to move this position forward. 'He said that the UK will recognise the state of Palestine in September, before UNGA (UN General Assembly), unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, reaches a ceasefire, makes clear there will be no annexation in the West Bank, and commits to a long-term peace process that delivers a two-state solution.' It comes after the Prime Minister had been under increasing pressure to recognise Palestine amid the warnings of starvation in Gaza. Speaking from Downing Street's state dining room – sometimes used for press statements – the Prime Minister then told reporters that the Government will 'make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps'. No should 'should have a veto over our decision', Sir Keir insisted. Sir Keir said the British Government was focused on getting aid into Gaza and getting hostages released when asked why Palestinian recognition was conditional on Israel de-escalating the situation. He added: 'This is intended to further that course, and it is done now because I am particularly concerned that the very idea of a two-state solution is reducing and feels further away today than it has for many, many years and, therefore, it should be seen in both of those contexts.' While Sir Keir has suggested UK recognition of Palestine is conditional on the crisis not abating, No 10 is understood to believe that such a two-state solution would also proceed from negotiations towards a sustained peace. The UK will keep working with its allies to 'end the suffering, get aid flooding into Gaza and deliver a more stable future for the Middle East', Sir Keir said, adding: 'Because I know that is what the British people desperately want to see.' In a hardening of his language about the crisis in Gaza, the Prime Minister has claimed the British public is 'revolted' by scenes of starvation in the territory. The UK and its allies need to see 'at least 500 trucks entering Gaza every day' to deliver aid, the Prime Minister added, and are together 'mounting a major effort to get humanitarian supplies back in' by air and by land. The Prime Minister discussed a UK-led international plan to alleviate the crisis in Gaza with Donald Trump on Monday, when the US president acknowledged there was 'real starvation' in the territory. Sir Keir has likened the plan he is working on with France and Germany to the coalition of the willing, the international effort to support Ukraine towards a lasting peace. Amid international alarm over starvation in Gaza, Israel announced at the weekend that it would suspend fighting in three areas for 10 hours a day and open secure routes for aid delivery. The UK confirmed it was taking part in airdrops of aid into the territory. Aid agencies have welcomed the new measures but said they were not enough to counter the rising hunger in the Palestinian territory. Sir Keir has been facing calls from a growing number of MPs to recognise a Palestinian state immediately. More than 250 cross-party MPs have now signed a letter calling for ministers to take the step, up from 221 on Friday. Sarah Champion, the senior Labour MP who organised the letter, told BBC Radio 4 the Prime Minister's announcement was 'a really big movement' and would send a message to Israel that the status quo 'is not good enough'. But she added: 'I am a little concerned though that from what I'm hearing it seems to be conditional on Israel accepting some terms and I don't understand why the two things are being linked together.' Opposition parties also raised concerns about the conditional nature of the UK's position, with Lib Dem Leader Sir Ed Davey criticising Sir Keir for using Palestinian statehood as a 'bargaining chip', while Plaid Cymru's Liz Saville Roberts called for the 'immediate recognition of Palestine'. Israel meanwhile said it 'rejects the statement by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom'. A statement on social media site X, the country's foreign ministry added: 'The shift in the British Government's position at this time, following the French move and internal political pressures, constitutes a reward for Hamas and harms efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and a framework for the release of hostages.'