Nigel Farage and Matt Goodwin (Image: Getty)

Asked if he was worried that the policy could be seen as an effort to cut out voters unlikely to support his party, Nigel Farage said that many other “normal” countries already do this.

He said: “I do believe for national elections they should be they should be voted on by British voters only, absolutely.

Mr Farage added: “We just want to be a normal country and normal countries protect their borders, protect their democratic systems, know what works and what doesn’t.”

Currently, anyone eligible to vote in UK elections can choose to do so by post but under Reform UK’s plans this would be limited to the elderly, disabled, serving armed forces personnel and those working overseas during an election.

Ensure our latest politics headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as Preferred Source in your Google search settings.

Mr Farage warned on Monday of the “mass harvesting” of postal ballots.

“I don’t trust the postal voting system. I don’t trust the electoral register,” he said.

The Reform UK leader has complained about postal voting in the past, including when Ukip lost the Oldham West and Royton by-election in 2015 and when his Brexit Party lost the Peterborough by-election in 2019.

Reform UK MP Richard Tice questioned the validity of postal ballots when his party’s candidate lost the Rochdale by-election in 2024, stressing the result should act as a “serious wake-up call” to the electorate and those in power.

In none of those cases was postal voting fraud ever proved and none resulted in any convictions.

Reform has also asked police to investigate allegations of election fraud after reports of “family voting” – an illegal practice where two voters use one polling booth and potentially direct each other on voting.

Election observer group Democracy Volunteers warned it had witnessed “concerningly high levels” of family voting in Gorton and Denton.

“In a democracy, everyone’s vote is equal and we attracted voters from across all communities, in all areas, including from those who said they were originally going to vote Reform.

“Farage has no idea who did and didn’t vote for him.

“And, as he said, he always knew they were going to lose. ‘If you don’t like the results of an election, change the electorate’ is the refrain of sore losers and anti-democrats through the ages.”

Nigel Farage Insists Reform Would Have Won the By-Election If Only UK Citizens Had Voted

Nigel Farage has reignited a debate over voting rights, citizenship and the future of British democracy after claiming that Reform UK would have won the Gorton and Denton by-election if only British citizens had been allowed to vote.

The claim followed a significant by-election result in which Green Party candidate Hannah Spencer finished first, Reform UK candidate Matt Goodwin came second, and Labour was pushed into third place. Farage subsequently argued that the result did not accurately reflect the preferences of British-born voters in the constituency. He said he was convinced that Goodwin would have finished first among British-born voters.

However, the claim remains Farage’s interpretation of the electorate rather than an independently verified alternative result. There was no separate election in which votes were classified according to the citizenship or birthplace of each voter. Consequently, the official result remains the result produced by the legally eligible electorate on polling day.

The controversy nevertheless highlights a much broader political argument about who should have the right to vote in British national elections and whether citizenship should become the central qualification.

A Dramatic By-Election Result

The Gorton and Denton contest attracted considerable attention because of the strength of the challenge from the Greens, Reform UK and Labour. Hannah Spencer’s victory represented a major breakthrough for the Green Party in a parliamentary by-election, while Reform’s second-place finish demonstrated its ability to compete strongly in an urban constituency.

Labour’s third-place position was particularly significant because the party had traditionally been a major force in the area. The result therefore became more than a simple contest between individual candidates. It was interpreted by different parties as evidence of changing political loyalties and shifting priorities among voters.

For Reform UK, however, the result also created an argument about the composition of the electorate.

Farage said that he believed Reform had performed particularly strongly among British-born voters and argued that the voting rights of Commonwealth citizens should be reconsidered for national elections. Under current rules, eligibility to vote in UK parliamentary elections is not determined simply by whether someone holds British citizenship. Certain qualifying Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland who meet the relevant requirements can also be entitled to vote.

That system has historical roots and reflects Britain’s constitutional relationship with Commonwealth countries and Ireland.

Farage’s Argument About Citizenship

Farage has argued that national elections should be decided by British citizens. His position is that allowing eligible non-British citizens, particularly qualifying Commonwealth citizens, to vote can create what he considers an inappropriate influence over Britain’s political direction.

At a press conference following the by-election, he argued that national elections should be reserved for British voters. He also suggested that international issues could become disproportionately important in constituencies with large immigrant or minority populations.

This argument forms part of a wider Reform UK proposal to change electoral rules. The party has also called for restrictions on postal voting, arguing that the existing system is vulnerable to abuse.

Farage’s supporters see the citizenship proposal as a question of democratic sovereignty: if national elections determine the government of the United Kingdom, they argue that the franchise should primarily belong to citizens of that country.

Critics, however, have challenged the logic behind connecting citizenship with the Gorton and Denton result. They point out that Farage does not have access to a complete record showing how individual voters voted according to nationality or birthplace. Voting in Britain is secret, and election officials do not record a voter’s political choice alongside their nationality in a way that could be used to reconstruct an alternative election result.

That distinction is important.

The Difference Between Citizenship and Birthplace

One of the central issues raised by the controversy is the difference between being British-born and being a British citizen.

A person can be born outside the United Kingdom and later become a British citizen. Conversely, people born in Britain can have different citizenship statuses depending on their circumstances. Citizenship, nationality, birthplace and immigration history are therefore not interchangeable categories.

Farage’s public statement focused particularly on British-born voters. But his proposed policy concerns citizenship.

These are not necessarily the same population.

A hypothetical calculation based on birthplace would therefore not automatically demonstrate what the result would have been under a citizenship-only franchise.

This is one reason the claim that Reform “would have won” should be understood as a political assertion rather than a confirmed alternative result.

The Green Party’s Response

The Green Party strongly rejected Farage’s interpretation of the election.

A Green Party spokesperson argued that voters from different communities had supported the party and accused Farage of attempting to delegitimise a result that went against Reform UK. The Greens maintained that their support came from across the constituency rather than from a single demographic group.

The dispute illustrates how election results can become contested even after votes have been counted.

A candidate can legitimately argue that particular demographic groups were especially important to their performance. However, determining precisely how every demographic voted requires reliable polling or electoral research. The secret ballot means that the official count establishes how many votes each candidate received, but not the citizenship, ethnicity or birthplace of every individual voter supporting them.

Concerns About Family Voting

The debate also coincided with concerns about voting practices in Gorton and Denton.

Reports emerged concerning so-called “family voting”, in which more than one person enters a polling booth or one voter potentially influences another’s choice. Family voting can undermine the secrecy of the ballot and is unlawful when someone enters a polling booth with the intention of influencing another person’s vote.

Reform UK called for allegations to be investigated. Democracy Volunteers, an election observation organisation, also reported concerns about the practice.

However, concerns about individual voting practices should not automatically be confused with evidence that the overall election result was fraudulent.

The available reporting noted that allegations of election fraud in Britain have generally not demonstrated large-scale organised fraud. According to Electoral Commission data cited in contemporary reporting, most allegations handled in 2024 were resolved without further police action or with advice being issued. No evidence was established showing that postal voting fraud had changed the outcome of the previous contests mentioned by Reform figures.

The distinction between an allegation, an investigation and a proven offence is therefore important.

The Question of Postal Voting

Farage’s criticism of the electoral system extends beyond citizenship.

Reform UK has proposed limiting postal voting to certain groups, including older people, disabled people, serving members of the armed forces and British citizens working overseas during elections.

At present, eligible voters can generally choose to vote by post without having to belong to one of those categories.

Farage has repeatedly expressed distrust of the postal voting system and has warned about what he describes as the potential for mass harvesting of postal ballots.

Yet concerns about the integrity of elections require evidence. The fact that a political party loses an election in which postal votes were cast does not itself demonstrate that those votes were fraudulent.

This principle is particularly important because confidence in elections depends not only on preventing wrongdoing but also on distinguishing proven irregularities from political disagreement with the result.

A Larger Debate About Democratic Reform

The Gorton and Denton controversy has therefore become part of a much larger discussion about the rules governing British elections.

Should voting in national elections be restricted exclusively to citizens?

Should qualifying Commonwealth citizens continue to have voting rights?

Should postal voting remain broadly available?

Should Britain introduce additional identification or registration requirements?

These are questions that involve constitutional principles as well as practical considerations.

Farage’s position is clear: he believes national elections should be decided by British citizens and argues that the current system allows people without British citizenship to influence the country’s political direction.

Opponents argue that long-standing voting rights should not be removed on the basis of assumptions about how particular groups vote. They also stress that people who live, work and pay taxes in Britain may have substantial connections to the country even if they hold another nationality.

The debate is therefore not simply about one by-election. It concerns the definition of political membership in modern Britain.

What the By-Election Actually Demonstrated

The official result demonstrated that Hannah Spencer won the Gorton and Denton by-election, with Matt Goodwin representing Reform UK finishing second and Labour third. That is the established electoral outcome.

Farage’s statement about British-born voters presents a different proposition: a hypothetical assessment of what might have happened under a different electorate.

Without an actual count separating voters by citizenship or birthplace, it cannot be treated as an alternative official result.

Nevertheless, the controversy provides insight into Reform UK’s developing political agenda. The party is increasingly linking immigration, national identity, electoral rules and democratic sovereignty. Farage’s comments show that voting rights are likely to remain an important part of Reform’s political programme.

For other parties, the episode presents a different challenge. Questions surrounding citizenship and voting rights are likely to generate debate about integration, representation and Britain’s historical relationship with Commonwealth countries.

Conclusion

Nigel Farage’s claim that Reform UK would have won the Gorton and Denton by-election if only British citizens had voted has placed the issue of electoral eligibility firmly back into Britain’s political debate.

The actual election result is not in dispute: the Green Party’s Hannah Spencer won, Reform UK came second and Labour finished third. Farage’s assertion concerns a hypothetical electorate and cannot be independently established from the official vote count.

What can be established is that Reform UK wants significant changes to the rules governing national elections, including limiting voting rights to British citizens and restricting access to postal voting. Farage argues that such changes would strengthen national sovereignty and ensure that Britain’s political future is determined by British voters.

Critics reject that approach and question whether changing the electorate after an unfavourable election result is appropriate. They also emphasise that nationality, birthplace and voting behaviour are separate questions that cannot simply be combined.

Ultimately, the dispute demonstrates how electoral rules can become central political issues in their own right. The Gorton and Denton by-election was decided by the electorate entitled to vote under the law at the time. Any future change to those rules would require a separate democratic and parliamentary process.

The controversy surrounding Farage’s remarks is therefore less about rewriting the result that has already happened and more about a fundamental question for Britain’s political future: who should have the right to help choose the government of the United Kingdom?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.