Nigel Farage has a huge opportunity to make changes across the UK, says Mieka Smiles (Image: Getty)
Let’s face it: most people don’t see local councils as the most thrilling of things. In fact, most see them as sluggish, administrative quagmires, struggling to get even the simplest of tasks over the line – from filling potholes to bin collections.
So perhaps that’s why there’ll be many who gave a shrug of the shoulders when they heard that Nigel Farage’s party, Reform, has taken over 10 local authorities. However, anyone with an ounce of political nous knows this was no accident – and that Farage’s laser focus on the local elections was an absolute masterstroke that could be the game-changer that propels Reform to victory at the next General Election.
Contrary to popular belief, true political power isn’t just held in Westminster. Local authorities wield vast influence. They manage multi-million-pound budgets, oversee huge workforces and make decisions that directly affect people’s daily lives. As a councillor myself in Middlesbrough, I’ve known MPs who say they envy the powers held by directly elected mayors and council leaders. And Farage now has an absolutely perfect platform – in fact 10 of them – to really show what his party is all about.
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.
Nigel Farage’s Reform now controls an impressive 10 local authorities (Image: Getty)
I think, so far, his commonsense council checklist is great – from finally getting council officers back into the office through to axing silly DEI roles. But by far Nigel and Reform’s biggest opportunity here is to use local councils in the battle to sort out migration.
You’d be forgiven for thinking that perhaps this kind of issue can only be solved by the PM and his pals – if they had the desire to do so. What’s less well known, however, is the role that local councils play in the area.
My hometown of Middlesbrough has always had some of the highest numbers of asylum seekers in the country. This is no accident – it’s because the Labour-run council has always accepted them. Yes, the Home Office is responsible for housing asylum seekers – and the key reason so many are housed in Middlesbrough is because it’s where some of the cheapest houses in the country are located.
But while councils can’t prevent this process from taking place, they can absolutely make things as difficult as possible – and stop rolling out the red carpet – as each local authority then has the responsibility of “settling” asylum seekers. If Reform councils push back on this in their new council areas, it’ll ignite a national conversation and a thousand headlines.
Farge has already made a start with a fiery post-election success in Durham. He said migrants were being “dumped into the north of England, [and] getting everything for free”. He added: ‘It is unfair, it is irresponsible, it is wrong in every way and I don’t believe Starmer has got the guts to deal with it.”
Say what you want about Farage – but I know firsthand that what he’s saying is absolutely true.
In Middlesbrough the deluge has led to huge pressure on local services – whether that be in schools – some with pupils speaking up to 40 languages – to getting yourself a GP appointment, which are like gold dust.
That’s not to mention the unsettled societies it leads to: no sooner has a family moved into an area, than they move on. This leads to less pride in communities, which has an impact in all kinds of ways.
So, although the next General Election feels as though it’s a lifetime away, if Nigel provides even some mild relief for locals in the council areas he now controls, it will gain him huge and widespread support. And trust me: on this he’ll already be 10 steps ahead.
Nigel Farage’s New Migrants Plan Puts Pressure on Keir Starmer
Nigel Farage has once again placed immigration at the centre of Reform UK’s political strategy, unveiling a tougher approach to migration that is designed to distinguish his party from Labour and the Conservatives.
The latest proposals build on Reform’s wider immigration programme, which includes stronger action against illegal Channel crossings, changes to asylum policy, tougher enforcement against illegal working and significant restrictions on future migration.
For Farage, the argument is fundamentally about control.
He wants voters to believe that Britain should have greater power over who enters the country, who is allowed to remain and how people without permission to stay are removed.
The proposals also put pressure on the government to demonstrate that its own immigration policies can produce visible results.
Reform’s immigration strategy
Immigration has been one of Reform UK’s defining political issues.
The party’s current policy platform includes what it calls Operation Fortress, under which the Royal Navy would be used alongside civilian authorities to intercept migrant boats crossing the English Channel.
Reform also proposes an extensive deportation programme for people it categorises as illegal migrants, alongside major changes to the legal framework governing asylum and immigration.
The party says its wider objective is to achieve net negative immigration and replace what it describes as a system of mass migration with a more selective approach focused on skills, salaries and contribution.
These proposals represent a much more restrictive approach than that traditionally adopted by the main Westminster parties.
Why the plan matters politically
The significance of Farage’s latest intervention goes beyond the individual proposals.
Reform has been trying to establish itself as a party capable of governing rather than simply protesting.
That means turning its long-standing criticism of immigration policy into a detailed programme that could theoretically be implemented from government.
This is a much harder task.
Opposition parties can identify problems and demand immediate action.
Governments have to deal with courts, treaties, international agreements, diplomatic relationships, administrative capacity and the practical limitations of enforcement.
That distinction is likely to dominate the debate over Reform’s plans.
The small boats crisis remains central
Channel crossings remain one of the most politically sensitive aspects of Britain’s migration debate.
Farage argues that the government should prevent migrant boats from reaching British shores rather than concentrating primarily on processing people after arrival.
His proposed Operation Fortress would involve naval vessels intercepting boats and returning people to France or Belgium under escort.
Supporters say the approach would fundamentally change the incentives facing people considering the Channel journey.
Critics, however, have questioned whether such a policy could be implemented without French cooperation and whether naval intervention would be legally and operationally straightforward.
Those questions are important because the Channel is an international waterway, meaning that British policy cannot be considered in isolation from France and wider international law.
Deportation is the second major pillar
Stopping new arrivals is only one part of Reform’s programme.
The party also wants to dramatically increase removals of people it considers to have no legal right to remain in Britain.
Its proposals include creating a dedicated UK Deportation Command and expanding detention capacity.
Reform has also proposed negotiating return agreements with countries that currently make removals difficult.
The party argues that a credible removal system is essential to restoring confidence in the immigration system.
The underlying political argument is that rules have little meaning if the state lacks the practical ability to enforce them.
Reform also targets illegal working
Another part of the strategy focuses on employers.
Reform has proposed making company directors and senior executives personally responsible when businesses employ illegal migrants, even in circumstances where the company claims not to have known the individual’s immigration status.
The idea is intended to attack the demand side of illegal migration.
Rather than focusing exclusively on migrants themselves, Reform wants employers to face much greater consequences for providing jobs to people without permission to work.
Supporters say this could reduce the incentive for illegal migration.
Opponents could argue that excessively broad liability could place additional burdens on legitimate businesses and create uncertainty around recruitment procedures.
Labour’s response
The government has attempted to develop its own combination of stronger enforcement and legal migration reform.
Ministers have argued that Britain needs tighter control of illegal routes while maintaining international obligations and creating controlled legal pathways.
The government’s approach has included greater cooperation with European countries, action against smuggling networks and efforts to speed up asylum decisions and removals.
That gives Labour an argument of its own.
The government can say it is already tightening the system while attempting to avoid the legal and diplomatic disruption associated with Reform’s proposals.
But the political difficulty is that immigration is an issue where voters often judge governments by visible outcomes.
If Channel crossings remain prominent, Reform can continue arguing that existing measures have not gone far enough.
The battle over asylum hotels
Accommodation has become another major part of the debate.
Large numbers of asylum seekers have been housed in hotels and other temporary accommodation, creating substantial costs for the taxpayer.
That has generated anger in some local communities, particularly where residents believe decisions were made without adequate consultation.
Reform has used the issue to argue that the government is failing to control the consequences of illegal migration.
Its message is deliberately simple: prevent arrivals, process claims more quickly and remove those who have no right to remain.
The government faces the more complicated task of explaining how asylum obligations can be fulfilled while reducing the cost and scale of temporary accommodation.
Farage’s broader political calculation
Farage’s immigration strategy also reflects the changing nature of Reform itself.
The party is now competing for voters who previously supported Labour as well as Conservatives.
That means immigration policy has become connected to wider concerns about wages, housing, public services and community identity.
Reform’s argument is that high migration can place additional pressure on housing and public services while making it harder for governments to control infrastructure demand.
Critics dispute aspects of that argument and point to the economic contribution made by many migrants.
The political debate therefore extends well beyond the number of people crossing the Channel.
It concerns what kind of immigration Britain wants and what obligations newcomers should have.
Legal obstacles cannot be ignored
One of the biggest tests facing Reform would be the legal framework.
The party has proposed leaving the European Convention on Human Rights and repealing the Human Rights Act as part of its immigration programme.
That would represent a profound change in Britain’s legal arrangements.
Supporters argue that existing rules restrict the government’s ability to deport people who have no right to remain.
Opponents argue that abandoning those protections could create serious consequences for individual rights, international relations and Britain’s wider constitutional framework.
Either way, implementing the policy would require major legislative and administrative changes.
From headline to implementation
This is ultimately where Farage’s proposal will be tested.
The rhetoric surrounding immigration can be powerful, but governing requires detailed answers.
Where would migrants be detained?
How quickly could cases be processed?
Which countries would accept people being removed?
What would happen when foreign governments refused?
How would the government handle people with genuine asylum claims?
What legal framework would replace existing protections?
And how much would the entire programme cost?
Those questions will become increasingly important if Reform moves from opposition campaigning towards preparing for government.
Why the issue puts pressure on the government
Farage does not necessarily need every voter to agree with every detail of his plan for immigration to remain politically important.
The proposals force other parties to explain their own positions.
Labour must demonstrate that its enforcement measures are producing results.
The Conservatives must decide how closely they want to compete with Reform on immigration.
And Reform must demonstrate that its proposals are more than slogans and can actually operate within the constraints of government.
That makes immigration one of the clearest tests of Reform’s transformation into a mainstream electoral force.
A defining political divide
Farage’s new migration push is therefore about much more than another announcement.
It represents an attempt to establish a clear dividing line between Reform and its competitors.
The party wants voters to see a choice between maintaining a heavily regulated but internationally constrained migration system and pursuing a far more aggressive programme designed to maximise national control.
Whether that approach can work in practice will depend on legal, diplomatic, financial and operational realities.
But politically, the issue remains highly significant.
Immigration has already reshaped Britain’s electoral landscape.
Farage’s strategy is to make sure it remains at the centre of the national debate — and to force every other major party to explain how it would deal with the same unresolved pressures.