Reform UK promised 'biggest rally in modern political history' - but it didn't come close
They were calling it the "biggest rally in modern political history" and while there has been momentum brewing within Reform UK, this event didn't even come close to meeting those expectations.
It was their local election launch in Birmingham where the party announced they can field candidates in every possible seat in the elections in May.
Up from the meagre 12% of available seats they managed last time. And that includes mayoral candidates with a new addition on Friday night, Aaron Banks for the West of England seat.
A familiar face for UKIPpers and a major help behind the scenes for Reform UK, drumming up thousands of pounds worth of donations for the party.
In one of the biggest arenas in Birmingham, the production value was high.
Thousands cheered from the stands at the 15,000 capacity venue, though a lot of empty seats were noticeable.
Speaking to loyal supporters who had waited hours for their party leader to speak, many raised their concerns with how the expulsion of one of Reform's former MPs was handled.
Recent division in the party started when Rupert Lowe was reported to the police by Reform UK over alleged threats of physical violence towards the party chairman, Zia Yusuf, something Lowe called untrue and false.
The party also commissioned an independent report which found "credible evidence" of separate allegations of bullying, which Lowe also disputes.
Among the chants of support for the party during the rally, there were also shouts of "Rupert" in the crowd - quickly quietened by security.
Poll popularity rivals government
While the energy was more subdued than previous events, their popularity in the polls still rivals the government.
In retaliation we saw a dozen or so Labour-backed billboards around the venue attacking the party.
The city's Birmingham Mail newspaper front cover was also co-opted by Labour warning against Farage, and Wes Streeting namechecked the party on Friday, accusing them of wanting to privatise the NHS.
With not just the locals but a by-election in just one month's time, it's clear who Labour see as the direct threat this time around.
Reform doesn't need to announce any policy at these rallies. But it hinted at a government efficiency strategy, borrowing language from across the pond, Farage stating he will create a version of Elon Musk 's DOGE - department of government efficiency.
It's not an unsympathetic crowd, there were a few red hats and a blue version stating "make Britain great again".
Their most effective messaging though is that they're simply not one of the main two parties and that seems to be cutting through above and beyond anything else.
List of candidates currently known to be running for West of England Mayor
Arron Banks - Reform UK
Helen Godwin - Labour
Oli Henman - Liberal Democrats
Mary Page - Green Party
Ian Scott - Independent
Steve Smith - Conservatives
The official list will be published 2 April 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
29 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
MP calls for ‘chronic under-supply' of Gypsy and Traveller sites to be addressed
A Labour MP has called on the Government to address the 'chronic under-supply' of Gypsy and Traveller sites across England. Mary Kelly Foy said planning decisions on these sites 'have frequently been underpinned by prejudice', with just 30 created over the past 30 years. The MP for City of Durham tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which proposes that Gypsy and Traveller sites are included in spatial development strategies. Speaking in the Commons, she said: 'Today I rise to speak to amendment 134, in my name, that works towards addressing a long-standing and deeply entrenched failure in our planning system, the chronic under-supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites across England. 'And my amendment seeks to increase fairness into the system to enable, rather than hinder, the provision of adequate, culturally appropriate accommodation for Gypsy and Traveller communities. 'For too long, the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers have been overlooked by the planning system.' She added: 'The Government has committed to delivering 1.5 million new homes by 2029, if that ambition is to be truly inclusive, it must include everyone, and that means by making space, literally and politically, for communities who have been moved on, fenced off and forgotten.' Ms Foy said just 30 sites have been created over the past 30 years, adding: 'Decisions on Gypsy and Traveller sites have frequently been underpinned by prejudice, whether overt or institutional. 'Too often, proposed developments are blocked or delayed by local opposition that's not met with political will or leadership. 'Site delivery also suffers from a lack of inclusion at the strategic planning level, where Gypsy and Traveller site provision can be absent from local plans and excluded from land allocations. And this absence isn't an accident, it's a result of years of structural marginalisation that this Bill must now correct.' Ms Foy said the UK is 'seeing a troubling trend' with the number of socially rented pitches declining. She argued that leaving out Gypsy and Traveller sites from future strategies would be 'repeating mistakes of the past'.
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'
