Gazing up at his old family home, Lee Anderson recalls growing up in the early Seventies when dawn would bring a trickle, then a flood, of miners from the back doors of their red-brick terraces and into the shared alley leading to New Hucknall Colliery.
Hearing his father Paul leave their modest house, the youngster would scramble bleary-eyed to his bedroom window to wave goodbye as his old man joined the tide of workers marching past outdoor coal bins overflowing with free fuel.
“Watching my dad go off to the pit taught me, that’s what men do,” Anderson tells the Daily Express as he surveys the three-bedroom home. “They get up at the crack of dawn to go to work and do an incredibly difficult job to pay the rent, put food on the table and clothes on your back. And when you got to 15-17, you knew that’s what you were going to do too.”
And so it was that aged 18 Anderson followed his father down the mine, while his sisters Lisa and Paula went with their mother Jenny to the local clothing factory – because that’s what generations of British working-class folk did.
“It might not seem like an aspiration to go to work in a coal mine, but I knew that’s where I needed to go if I wanted money,” he says.
Get the latest politics news straight to your phone Join us on WhatsApp
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
Lee Anderson MP in Ashfield with the Express’s Zak Garner-Purkis (Image: Pete Jenkins)
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Anderson, who left the mine a year later after it closed, is not an overly emotive man, yet it’s clear the memory touches something deep inside. But, on this frosty January morning nearly five decades later, the only worker we see making his way down the alley in the Nottinghamshire town of Sutton-in-Ashfield is a local drug dealer, sucking on a vape.
The colliery and heavy industry that used to employ all those miners is long gone and the broken doors of the remaining coal bins have been filled with soiled clothing and broken children’s toys for as long as some people can remember.
“It’s gone from being a load of coal miners and factory workers to drug dealers and doleys,” says Anderson ruefully.
Anderson, 58, must be one of the UK’s most controversial politicians, having represented three different parties. He is certainly the most straight-talking.
He views this sorry scene not just as a former miner and local lad, but as the area’s elected representative having jumped ship from the Tories to Reform UK last year. This, in contrast to many politicians, makes the consequences of the decline of a constituency in the heartland of industrial Britain “personal”.
Powered by this journey from “pit to Parliament” and an uncompromising willingness to speak his mind, Anderson has fast become one of Britain’s most recognisable political figures.
Last summer, the people of Sutton-In-Ashfield endorsed him for a third time at the ballot box, this time for Nigel Farage’s disruptive political party. This, in an area where the Labour Party used to place cabinet ministers, was a serious vindication of Anderson’s popularity, given his previous elections as a Conservative Party MP and former Labour councillor in 2015.
He believes the transformation of this quiet part of Nottinghamshire into a Reform UK stronghold is part of the biggest shift in British politics in over a century, so the Express spent a morning with Anderson to find out if he’s right.
Miners ‘were used’
The miners’ strike of 1984 put Nottinghamshire at the centre of a national dispute (Image: Getty)
Nottinghamshire was a flashpoint of the 1984 national miners’ strike when a majority of the local workers broke with the rest of the country by choosing to go down the pits rather than join the picket lines.
His dad, now 80 and still living in Ashfield, was one of a few who joined Arthur Scargill’s National Union of Miners (NUM) in refusing to work. He was a firm believer in the worker’s solidarity so Anderson’s formative years were spent listening to left-wing leaders like the NUM boss, Dennis Skinner and Tony Benn.
But standing on the industrial units that have replaced the huge shafts of the colliery where he first worked, Anderson sees the battle between the Conservative government and Scargill’s union very differently now.
“If you believed what they were saying; Maggie [Thatcher] and the Tories were evil, we’d got to fight back and bring a government down,” he says.
“But I think the miners were being used as useful idiots and Arthur Scargill, who we idolised, was just in a battle between him and Maggie. It was egos, he really wanted to beat her and used decent men like my dad to get his own way. It wasn’t right.”
He points out that, in Ashfield, an entire generation has grown up and had their own children since the mines closed, the tradition of unemployment continually passed on.
Watching the struggles of these families during a decade spent working at the Citizens Advice Bureau, while Tony Blair’s government was in power, Anderson’s political compass started to shift to the right.
“It was there that I saw poverty and the causes of poverty,” he says. “The Labour Party created a lot of that with tax credits that made people dependent on benefits but offered no solutions. I would see families coming in with debt, housing and benefit problems. Then 10 years later I would see the kids come with the same problems.”
‘These are the “far right racists”’
Reform Party MP Lee Anderson attempts to distract a dog (Image: Getty Images)
Anderson knows that, when he heads back to Nottinghamshire from Westminster on a Thursday night, he’ll be greeted with some blunt reviews of his performance that week in Parliament from the regulars at his local pub, aptly named The Doghouse.
He starts every Friday morning in his constituency with a visit to a group of old ladies having tea at the covered market in the town centre. Walking through the shopping centre, the Ashfield MP is stopped by a childhood friend, keen to tell him about some cheap pints then bumps into his mother, Jenny, already relaying the concerns of the earlier pensioners.
“This is what is classed as economically inactive,” he quips when we finally reach the cafe, a joke that generates both hearty laughs and gentle scaldings about “how much tax” the women have paid. Today, the main complaint is anti-social behaviour by youngsters at an old people’s home. “You tell them off, and they just look at you and laugh,” one of the group tells Anderson. “I’ll look into it,” he replies, and you believe him.
As we tour the market, Anderson is obviously in his element, bantering with a bookseller one minute and offering a concerned ear to an irritated constituent the next.
Stood beside retired factory workers with steaming mugs of tea and men in Mansfield Town football tops, Anderson couldn’t be further from the Westminster bubble and you get the impression that’s exactly why he comes here regularly.
He believes the white working-class people in old industrial areas, like Nottinghamshire, have been ignored and demonised by those in power for far too long. Their shift to the right in the past two elections, he thinks, is because they are “fed up” of being taken for granted or branded “racist” for concerns over immigration.
“These are the ‘far-right racists’,” he tells the Express disgustedly when we’re back in the car. “You know, people on minimum wage who have seen and digested massive changes. They’ve gone from being traditional Labour voters to first-time Tory voters in 2019 to voting for me and Reform.
“It was incredible,” he continues, gesturing to a long row of old coal-board houses. “They all had Vote Reform posters outside.”
Anderson only planned to stand for two terms as a Member of Parliament but has changed his mind since joining Nigel Farage’s party.
He explains: “Now I think I might stand again because I feel like I’m part of something. In the last Parliament I didn’t feel part of anything and I just felt like voting fodder. You turn up, go to the voting lobby and do as you’re told.
“I don’t want to be that person. I want my country to be a good country. I want to sort things out and leave our country in a better state than when I arrived.”
‘I want my country back’
Lee Anderson in his constituency (Image: Pete Jenkins)
Anderson might claim to have been told what to do by party bosses, but his reputation is as someone unafraid to defy orders. Since being elected as a Labour Party councillor for the area a decade ago, he has regularly attracted controversy.
He first made headlines in 2018 for hiring a digger and placing concrete blocks to stop travellers from illegally setting up camp in a local car park, which resulted in his suspension by Labour. A few months later, he caused another storm by defecting to the Conservatives and accusing Labour of being “taken over by the hard left”.
It was an audacious move that paid off big time because, a year later, Boris Johnson swept into power by turning the ‘Red Wall’, including Sutton-In-Ashfield, blue.
Anderson became a Tory MP and the most obvious personification of this seismic shift in Britain’s political landscape. At Westminster, he attracted a level of publicity most first-time MPs could only dream of.
At one stage, he was going viral on a near-weekly basis, whether it was for refusing to watch the England football team during the 2021 European Championships over the players “taking the knee” to telling migrants who didn’t want to live on the Bibby Stockholm to “f***k off back to France” or feuding online with the food poverty campaigner Jack Monroe.
From the backbenches, he was able to build a public profile that far exceeded those passing through top positions in the ever-changing Tory leadership.
By 2023, Rishi Sunak was tapping Anderson for deputy party chair and almost immediately found himself caught in a media storm over comments from the ex-miner about supporting a return of capital punishment.
Anderson admits to being “mischievous” but believes much of the outrage stems from people removed from reality.
“The political establishment is just completely out of touch. I still see it every single day in Parliament, not just with the politicians, but with some of the journalists as well,” he says.
Now at Reform, the shackles, if they ever really hindered him, have been completely removed and he can lean into the message that first put him on the national agenda.
“I always say, ‘I want my country back’,” he explains. “And people go, ‘You racist bigot’, [But] what I want [is] my kids to go to schools and learn, not be told that there could be 25 different genders.
“I want to be able to ring a doctor up in the morning and get an appointment the same day. I want bobbies to walk the streets. I want rapists and murderers locked up for life and I don’t want illegal migrants being put up in four-star hotels. It’s not much, is it, really?”
As the Express prepares to leave Anderson gives a firm handshake and looks us in the eyes. “It’s nice that you could take time out to come to Ashfield and meet some real people in the real world,” he says.
“Now you can get back to the Westminster bubble and live a life of denial.”
Inside the Little UK Town Where Locals Are ‘Fed Up With Being Told They’re Racist’
In the quiet streets of Faversham, a historic market town in Kent, a national argument about immigration, English identity and racism has become a deeply local dispute. What might once have been a familiar community setting has increasingly found itself at the centre of protests, counter-protests and disagreements over how Britain should respond to asylum seekers.
For some residents and anti-immigration campaigners, the frustration is about feeling ignored by politicians and being dismissed as racist when they raise concerns about immigration. Others argue that the language used at demonstrations, and the involvement of far-right activists, make those concerns difficult to separate from hostility towards migrants.
The result is a town reflecting a much wider division across Britain: how can people discuss immigration honestly without dismissing legitimate concerns or excusing prejudice?
A small town caught in a national argument
Faversham is known for its historic streets, traditional market-town character and strong local identity. Yet the town has also become a focus of protests linked to the housing of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
CNN reporting in June 2026 described demonstrations in Faversham in which anti-immigration activists marched towards a facility housing young asylum seekers. Some local residents came out to oppose the protesters, creating a visible divide between those demanding tighter immigration controls and those defending refugees. <Cite refs={[“turn570178search0″,”turn570178search1”]}/>
The scenes illustrated how a decision about accommodation can become a national political symbol. For people concerned about immigration, the presence of asylum seekers in their community can raise questions about public consultation, local resources and the government’s ability to manage the asylum system. For people supporting refugees, demonstrations targeting accommodation can make vulnerable residents feel unwelcome or unsafe.
Those concerns should not automatically be treated as identical. Criticising government policy is not, in itself, evidence of racism. Equally, describing a protest as opposition to immigration does not mean that every statement or action associated with it is free of racial prejudice.
Understanding the town’s tensions requires examining both the practical questions residents raise and the wider political activity that has gathered around them.
‘Fed up with being called racist’
A recurring complaint among some anti-immigration protesters is that their concerns are dismissed before they can be properly discussed.
They argue that residents should be able to question the location of asylum accommodation, the cost of housing applicants, the pressure on public services and the government’s handling of irregular migration without automatically being labelled extremists.
That frustration is part of a broader debate about political representation. People who feel that mainstream parties have not responded to their concerns may turn to demonstrations or political movements that promise to challenge established thinking.
In Faversham, a commentary by Frank Furedi described anti-immigration demonstrators as people who felt ignored by the political establishment and resented being characterised as racist. He also described the sharp hostility between demonstrators and counter-protesters. <Cite refs={[“turn570178search6”]}/>
But the complaint that people feel unfairly labelled does not settle whether particular rhetoric or conduct is racist. That assessment depends on what people actually say and do, rather than simply how they describe themselves.
A resident asking whether the government has adequately consulted a community before placing asylum seekers in accommodation is raising a question about public administration. A person targeting neighbours because of their ethnicity or religion is doing something fundamentally different.
Keeping that distinction clear is essential if local disagreements are to be discussed constructively.
The far right’s role in the dispute
One complication in Faversham has been the involvement of organised political activists whose message goes beyond criticism of government policy.
CNN’s coverage of demonstrations in the town recorded the participation of figures associated with the far right, including Britain First leader Paul Golding. The report described rhetoric about immigration that went beyond practical questions about accommodation and entered arguments about the ethnic and national identity of Britain. <Cite refs={[“turn570178search0″,”turn570178search2”]}/>
This involvement matters because it can change how a protest is perceived. Some residents may attend because they are concerned about government decisions, while organised activists may seek to use the same gathering to promote a much broader ideological agenda.
It would be inaccurate to assume that everyone attending an anti-immigration demonstration shares the same views. It would be equally inaccurate to ignore the messages and conduct of groups that use such events to spread hostility towards minorities.
A June 2026 report by Searchlight described a separate disruption at a Faversham Town Council committee meeting concerning the implementation of the town’s sanctuary policy. The report said activists disrupted proceedings, forcing the meeting into private session. <Cite refs={[“turn570178search4”]}/>
Such incidents raise questions not only about immigration but also about the ability of elected local representatives to debate policy and make decisions without intimidation or disruption.
People have a right to protest, criticise public authorities and demand answers. Councillors and residents also have a right to participate in public life without being threatened or prevented from speaking.
The asylum system is part of the problem
Local tensions cannot be understood solely through the words used at demonstrations. They also reflect wider frustrations with how Britain manages asylum applications and accommodation.
When the government places asylum seekers in a community, residents may want to know why that location was selected, how long the arrangement will last, what support is available and whether local authorities have the resources they need.
A lack of clear information can leave a vacuum in which rumour and speculation flourish. When official explanations are delayed or confusing, residents may turn to social media or campaign groups for answers, even when the information they encounter is incomplete or misleading.
The government has a responsibility to explain its decisions in accessible language. That includes providing accurate information about accommodation, the legal status of residents, the processing of asylum claims and the arrangements for dealing with problems.
At the same time, asylum seekers are individuals whose claims must be assessed under the applicable legal framework. They should not be treated as collectively responsible for the failures of government policy, nor should unverified allegations about individuals be repeated as established fact.
A credible immigration system must combine effective administration with respect for the law and the dignity of the people affected by it.
Why the debate over national identity matters
The disputes in Faversham have also intersected with a wider argument about the English flag, national identity and who feels entitled to express patriotism.
For some people, displaying the St George’s Cross is an ordinary expression of pride in their country and local heritage. Others have become wary of such displays when they appear alongside anti-migrant slogans or are associated with far-right organisations.
The flag itself does not establish a person’s political beliefs. Its meaning depends on context, just as a person’s views should be assessed through their actual words and actions rather than assumptions about their background.
The wider problem is that symbols can become contested when communities no longer trust one another’s intentions. One group may see a flag as a declaration of belonging; another may interpret the same display as a warning that some residents are not considered part of the community.
Rebuilding trust requires more than arguing over symbols. It requires a shared understanding that national identity and equal treatment need not be mutually exclusive.
People can be proud of their country, want effective border controls and expect the government to enforce immigration law while also recognising the rights and dignity of people from different backgrounds.
What residents want from their leaders
The anger surrounding Faversham points towards practical questions that politicians cannot answer with slogans alone.
Residents deserve clear information about local decisions, including the reasons for selecting particular accommodation sites and the responsibilities of the relevant authorities. They should be able to raise concerns about resources, safety and consultation without being dismissed.
The government, in turn, must distinguish between legitimate criticism and claims that are unsupported by evidence. Where concerns relate to crime or public safety, they should be investigated through proper procedures rather than settled by rumour or collective blame.
Local representatives also have a role to play. Public meetings need to remain places where disagreements can be aired, evidence can be examined and decisions can be challenged peacefully. Disruption and intimidation make it harder for residents with different views to find common ground.
Political parties must be careful, too, about presenting a complex local dispute as proof that an entire town thinks one way. Faversham contains different experiences and opinions. The people who attend a demonstration are not necessarily representative of everyone who lives nearby.
A town divided — and a country facing the same question
Faversham’s experience illustrates how national disagreements can become personal when they involve the places where people live. Questions about immigration policy are no longer confined to Parliament or television studios when decisions affect accommodation, local services and a community’s sense of identity.
Some residents feel that raising concerns about immigration has exposed them to unfair accusations. Others fear that anti-immigration campaigns can legitimise prejudice and make minority communities feel unwelcome. Both perspectives are part of the dispute, but neither should be accepted uncritically without examining the evidence.
The way forward is not to prohibit difficult conversations or to assume that every concern is motivated by racism. Nor is it to dismiss the impact of racist rhetoric simply because its speakers claim to be expressing legitimate frustration.
The distinction must be made through facts, context and conduct.
Ultimately, residents need a government that explains its decisions, a functioning asylum system that can be held accountable and local institutions capable of managing disagreements peacefully. They also need political leaders who recognise that public trust is difficult to rebuild when people believe they are not being heard.
Faversham’s story is therefore about more than one town or one protest. It is about whether Britain can debate immigration, national identity and public responsibility without reducing every disagreement to an accusation or every criticism to a conspiracy.
That challenge will not be solved by slogans alone. It will require transparency from government, responsibility from political campaigners and a willingness to distinguish legitimate questions from prejudice wherever either appears.