To put it into perspective, the LibDem's have 72 sitting MP's whereas Reform has 4 one of which is a populist mouthy cunt.
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2025
103 points (99.0% liked)
United Kingdom
5379 readers
597 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
My wife and I had an argument about this the other day. She thinks Farage doesn't want to be PM because too much work, etc. Personally I think he would utterly fucking love to be PM so he could (in his own mind) be held as an equal of Churchill, Thatcher, and any other far higher achieving politician. He craves validity and this would give him all he could ever wish for.
I don't, for a moment, think he'd put the hours in and do any work. He's spent his entire political life doing sweet fuck all (as a statement) and I doubt he'd turn around and change.
Sounds rather like Boris Johnson.
Exactly like him.
The BBC's response seems to boil down to "we aim to reflect voices in the UK proportionally to current voting intention".
I don't think that should be their goal, though. I want them to aggressively hold anyone with, or who wants power, to account. Then, when complaints inevitably come from the right, they could justifiably say "our goal is to aggressively challenge everyone equally", and point to examples of them holding the other parties to account too.
I think Private Eye is an example of this done well - they look for corruption or hypocrisy, and wherever they can find it, they challenge it.
Was the BBC ever like that? - much more aggressive and towards anyone in power? - or am I just looking back with rose tinted glasses?
The BBC got massive flak when they challenged the case for invading Iraq, and the fallout from the death of David Kelly. They’ve never fully recovered.
we aim to reflect voices in the UK proportionally to current voting intention
Was there a national poll that I don't recall? Because the last one I was aware of, a majority of people voted Labour, and the BBC have never, ever been pro-labour. Maybe they're claiming that tons of people intended to vote for Farage and co but couldn't figure out how ballots work, which is remotely credible, but it would take some serious research to back that up so I don't think that's it.
How on earth are they claiming to know people's voting intentions in the first place, let alone the rather groundbreaking idea that the election was wrong.
This has a worrying air of the Trump style, post-truth 'any official, scientific, pro-equality and / or leftie information is fake news' that we saw before trump was elected. I remember being amazed that a public figure could so blatantly, confidently lie about important constitutional processes and not be arrested for - Idk but if fraud, libel, aiding and abetting, misrepresentation etc are crimes, then misleading an entire country to disenfranchise them and mis-sell a political position must be quite serious.
We are all legally obliged to pay the BBC if we want to watch live news. That is quasi-governmental, and hella powerful. If I want to watch live TV in this country and don't want to pay to fund a corporation that's flagrantly misrepresenting the existence/ validity of an actual national election, I kinda feel there should be more recourse than 'Dear Sir / Madam, we have received your complaint and will take it on board if and when we ever have the slightest reason to'.
The BBC are telling the world that most people in the UK 'intend' to vote for Farage. That is not just untrue, or biased, or impossible for them to know. It's such an absurd claim that I think the scariest part is the fact that they are getting away with it.
Reform lead 12 councils, and have 881 councillors. Historically, it was the biggest party in the European Parliament after the 2019 election. It’s wishful thinking to carry on as if they’re a negligible factor.
How are people meant to have a good view of the political landscape and show intent to vote for a different party when said parties don't get any coverage? Lol what a joke
Repeat something enough and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. First it was "Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable", now it's "Nigel Farage is on course to be the next Prime Minister". Same thing.
Nigel Farage as PM is more of a historical inevitability at this point unless something really big happens, but the media is absolutely complicit.
You're doing it yourself.
No, it's just the historical march of fascism. Fascism in the UK could theoretically be stopped, but so far I haven't heard of enough real backlash to seriously consider the possibility.
kagis
Ah. I hadn't realized that Reform's polling was nearly that high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Fun thought experiment: have you ever met anyone who has replied to opinion polls?
I asked my dear 80 year old mother that a while ago, she hadn't. I haven't.
They are generally conducted by phone, cold calling landlines, or by someone going door to door with a clipboard.
Many unofficial (but still very influencial, including gov.uk) polls are online, and users have to complete hundreds of them to get a nominal payment, £5 I believe.
Now imagine the sort of person who answers their ringing landline/ door and says 'why yes, stranger, yes I do have 10 minutes to discuss my voting intentions', and you have the entire 'over 40 years old' demographic represented in these results.
Imagine someone who has actively sought out survey websites and sits though at least 100, over 6 months or so, for a tiny amount of pocket money - or even weirder, someone who just decided to do it anyway - and you have the entire 'under 40 years old' demographic in these results.
And now, thinking of those door-answerers and survey-clickers, imagine how colourful and exciting their lives must be, and then ask yourself what possible incentive they have to tell the truth when absolutely nobody will ever know if they liven up the tedium slightly by claiming to be a 45 year old self made millionaire with 12 lovely children all planning to vote Jedi in the next election.
And that is why opinion polls always come out way, way more fringe than the reality ever is. Because normal people do not answer them unless they have a strong opinion or an incentive, and those with an incentive generally have no incentive to be honest.
(For reference, I'm not dunking on people who have done these things. I spent about a year answering yougov surveys until it dawned on me that it worked out at less than 5p an hour. If you're bored or just want to contribute to the national knowledge pool, awesome, but you probably already know you're not exactly an average voter)
Maybe. But if you look at the local elections from May:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg467m8mjo
...Reform got 31% of the votes cast. The chart of polls is pretty close, and actually slightly underrates them for May 2025. Now, maybe voting in the general election and local elections have different groups of people show up. I know that here in the US, that's a factor for midterm elections. That could affect outcomes in the general election. But...my guess is that the chart probably is at least in the neighborhood of being representative of their support in society. Or, maybe more accurately, of their support among those who go to vote.
Is there anything the lib dems and greens do to get more of the dropping labour support? It's scary to me how little of that drop has gone to the left.
eh not surprising given they are doing their best to validate other fascists too
So much for being impartial...
I think that all went out the window during the Tory era, with things such as replacing the head of the BBC with a Tory, threatening to pull all funding unless they started promoting the government's right-wing perspective and caving into Rupert Murdoch's pressure that he is poor and starving because the evil BBC is taking all his rightful TV money and viewers.
BBC comedy show and dramas are still on the whole centrist or a bit left leaning, but the news skewed heavily to the right about 10-15 years ago.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oBiryX7a8gA&t=1230s
Skip to 20:30 if the time jump doesn't work.
Comedy has been attacked and gutted from its previous peak as well.
I miss Mock the Week :(
Without Farrage politics is at risk of being boring, and the media can't sell boring
The BBC is taxpayer funded, it shouldn't have to "sell" anything.
It’s a licence not a tax
In January 2006, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) changed the classification of the licence fee from a service charge to a tax. Explaining the change, the ONS said: "in line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services. A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, or cable". A briefing paper from the House of Commons Library described the licence fee as a hypothecated tax (i.e. one raised for a particular defined purpose).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom
✌️