The claims that “Britain is broken” and that “Reform will fix it” were made by Suella Braverman, on stage to the waiting press and television cameras, alongside Reform Party leader Nigel Farage on the day that she defected from the Conservative Party to Reform UK.
Braverman had been a controversial backbench MP and Home Secretary, from which she was dismissed twice: first after copying a confidential government email to a private contact outside government, and later after publicly criticising police management of street protests.
More broadly, Braverman had been a strong, divisive, and vocal advocate for a more hard-line approach to immigration control. She described Channel boat crossings as an “invasion” and called for tougher measures against asylum seekers, including deporting failed asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Reform UK has increasingly positioned itself as a political home for those who view immigration and asylum as burdensome and threatening issues. This positioning is closely linked to Farage’s political record, public remarks and policy positions on immigration and national identity.
But is Britain broken, and will Reform fix it?
Is Britain broken?
“Britain is broken” has become a widely repeated grievance narrative in right-wing political circles and sections of the press, almost functioning as a populist mantra comparable to “take back control”. The Daily Telegraph, citing an Ipsos poll, reported that 68% of the public believe that Britain is broken, rising to 90% of Reform UK voters. Robert Jenrick, another recent defector to Reform UK, has also argued that the Conservative Party is responsible for breaking Britain.
More generally, this claim is based on several sub-arguments, some more valid than others:
- British high streets are in decline, with boarded-up shops and an increase in charity shops, vape shops, nail salons, and Turkish barber shops;
- The cost of living “feels” like it has worsened in recent years, while the wealth of millionaires and billionaires has increased, fuelling economic discontent;
- Street crime is claimed to have increased, often attributed to the presence of immigrants, particularly those without legal status;
- A perceived deterioration in what is described as “cultural cohesion”, linked by critics to rising levels of immigration and increasing ethnic diversity;
- Concerns about the number of asylum seekers awaiting decisions on their claims and being housed in hotels near population centres, which some portray as posing crime risks;
- Claims that migrants are prioritised for social housing, NHS appointments, and school places, allegedly reducing availability to existing residents.
These sub-claims, however, are long-standing and of varying evidential strength, often shaped by technological change, global events, and domestic policies, including those of successive Conservative governments.
Global economic hits
The 2008 financial crisis drove up borrowing costs and inflation. Brexit contributed to rising prices and labour shortages. The war in Ukraine increased global energy costs, while the Covid-19 pandemic led to labour market disruption. At the same time, high street decline was increased by the growth of out-of-town retail parks, lower rental rates outside city centres, the expansion of supermarket product ranges, and the rapid increase of online shopping.
Under successive Conservative governments, the processing of asylum claims slowed, police numbers were drastically cut, public services faced spending limitations, and the government’s “levelling-up” agenda largely failed.
At the same time, an Australian-style immigration points system facilitated the arrival of significant numbers of non-European migrants. Furthermore, international commitments granted additional routes of residency, including to people from Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Hong Kong. Worker shortages in sectors such as agriculture, the NHS and social care during and following the Covid-19 pandemic also increased reliance on overseas recruitment.
“Out-of-touch elites”
Reform UK’s candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election, Matthew Goodwin, recently presented his critique of Britain’s condition. At a Prospect-organised event, summarised by Alan Rusbridger, Goodwin described a country undermined by out-of-touch elites and cultural decline. His statement included:
- A “once great” Britain has fallen into the hands of a small, disconnected “radicalising minority” that is allegedly reshaping universities, towns, business, and culture;
- These elites are portrayed as more comfortable in global institutions than in provincial Britain, committed to social liberalism, hyper-globalisation and woke ideology, including the civil service “Wokehall”.
- The legacy media, according to Goodwin, prioritise ideology over evidence, with broadcasters and newspapers accused of misrepresentation;
- The Davos Set “failed economically. Failed socially. Failed civilisationally”;
- Universities are described as dominated by an “ideological monoculture”.
- Corporate institutions such as the John Lewis partnership are criticised as fully absorbed by diversity, equity, and inclusion agendas.
- Goodwin warned of a coming “demographic rupture”, suggesting that changing populations and culture threaten national identity.
- He argued that cultural belonging requires more than legal citizenship, based on an “ethno-traditional” idea of shared history and ancestry. He stated that “it takes more than a piece of paper to make somebody ‘British’” (edited extracts for readability).
There are and have been many genuinely broken societies worldwide— Sudan, Yemen, Venezuela, North Korea— enduring conflict and deprivation. By contrast, Britain is currently experiencing global pressures and domestic policy choices similar to those faced by other European countries.
Therefore, it can be argued that the portrayal of Britain as fundamentally “broken” is overstated and politically instrumental. Is this narrative being used as a populist trope in order to engender mass disaffection and grievance with the current government and to gain electoral support for Reform UK?
Will Reform fix it?
The suggestion that Britain’s social, economic, and political challenges could be “fixed”, in the manner of repairing a dripping tap with a new washer, is highly questionable. However, it is consistent with Nigel Farage’s previous political messaging style through UKIP and the Brexit Party, which frequently argued that simple, “common-sense” solutions were available. For example, leaving the European Union was presented as a means of resolving the UK’s immigration pressures and ushering in a renewed era of prosperity and self-respect for all.
A brief examination of Reform UK’s policy platform confirms that there is no single or immediate solution to Britain’s structural challenges. Several ideas could risk increasing social division, economic inequality, and lead to a more intolerant, poorer, and more isolated country:
- Immigration: a significantly tougher approach to immigration, asylum policy, and the status of foreign-born residents. Farage has suggested that no new asylum claims would be accepted, and deporting large numbers of individuals, reportedly 600,000. Achieving this would likely require the creation of a UK enforcement body comparable to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), together with complex and contentious deportation arrangements.
- “Net Stupid Zero”: Reform politicians have used this phrase to describe opposition to net-zero environmental targets. Nationally, this may involve scrapping or scaling back environmental initiatives and prioritising fossil fuel energy production. Kent County Council under Reform have already cancelled their plan to electrify their fleet of vehicles, and Lincolnshire Council have cancelled all work and investment planning for flood defences.
- Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) and equality legislation: scrapping or replacing DEI initiatives and reviewing the Equality Act. However, this would weaken legal protections relating to gender, sexual orientation, disability, and race.
- Withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights: Leaving the ECHR could endanger the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement and imperil the rights of all British citizens. Any replacement British Bill of Rights would remain subject to parliamentary sovereignty.
- Reform of the Online Safety Act: abolishing or substantially revising the Online Safety Act would reduce regulatory oversight and permit harmful content, particularly affecting protection for younger users.
- Education and taxation policies: tax relief on private school fees and broader tax restructuring, including lower taxes for businesses and lower-income earners.
- Relations with European institutions: further distancing the UK from European regulatory and political frameworks.
- Health policy: significant short-term funding injection into the NHS, alongside increased encouragement of private healthcare provision and consideration of insurance-based healthcare models.
- Public broadcasting and government administration: abolish the BBC licence fee and significantly reduce the activities of the civil service.
Reform UK’s candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election offers the following:
“No more welfare for people who aren’t British, stop the boats, fix the border, support small businesses and bring down energy bills by taking on net zero.”
Reform will not fix anything
Policies of this nature, and many others, would place significant strain on UK’s institutions, social cohesion, and welfare provision. Such approaches risk encouraging a more confrontational political culture, weakening established legal safeguards, narrowing protections for asylum seekers, and reducing the government’s role in social welfare provision.
The claim that “Britain is broken, and Reform will fix it” rests on two contested propositions: first, that Britain is fundamentally broken; and second, that Reform UK offers solutions to complex challenges.
It can be argued that many of Reform’s proposals would destroy aspects of Britain’s existing society, including commitments to tolerance, equality before the law and social responsibility. The Daily Mirror’s Sophie Huskisson describes the Reform UK conference as a bizarre mix of nastiness and pantomime. But as Kate Pickett argues in discussions of “the good society”, national stability depends on maintaining social trust, fairness, and institutional legitimacy.
Braverman’s defection and Reform’s populist messaging illustrates the depths to which political debate can sink. The prominence of narratives focused on national decline and cultural division, pushed by Reform UK, GB News and right-wing newspapers shows that populist arguments are gaining traction, raising urgent questions about the future direction of British politics.
Comments? We want to hear them. Please write to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
