For the latest entry in our Academic Series we welcomed Dr. Stephanie Luke, Lecturer in Politics at Cardiff University, whose research focuses on how political parties adapt their strategies in the face of new challenges. Her talk, titled When Attack Strategies Backfire, explored what happens when Labour and Reform UK clash on social media, and what those exchanges reveal about the risks of taking on an untested populist challenger.
Reform UK is often described as a new party, but Dr. Luke began by placing it in its longer lineage. Under different names, from UKIP to the Brexit Party, Farage-led formations have repeatedly disrupted British politics. The Brexit Party swept the 2019 European elections, collapsed in the 2019 General Election after withdrawing candidates from Conservative seats, and then returned as Reform in 2024 with five MPs and 14.3% of the vote. By the 2025 local elections it was fielding hundreds of candidates, winning 670 council seats, two mayors, and a sixth MP. Importantly, this surge has not only threatened the Conservatives. Reform came second in 98 constituencies in 2024, and 89 of those were Labour-held. It has also taken dozens of Labour council seats in by-elections. That is why, despite the conventional wisdom that populist right parties cannibalise conservative votes, Labour is increasingly forced to reckon with Reform as a direct competitor.
Dr. Luke’s research looked closely at how this competition played out in the short campaign before the 2025 local elections, analysing every official post published by Labour and Reform across X, Facebook (including adverts), Instagram and TikTok between late March and polling day in early May. In total she combed 683 Labour posts and found that 210 around 30% explicitly mentioned Reform. By contrast, Reform mentioned Labour in only 14% of its posts. Labour’s emphasis was particularly stark on Facebook Ads, where more than 40% referenced Reform, an unsurprising choice given the older voter base most likely to see those adverts.
The content of those messages followed predictable patterns. Labour’s campaign was dominated by the NHS, warning voters that Farage favoured an insurance-based system, while Reform made immigration the cornerstone of its message, linking it to other grievances such as housing shortages or pressure on public services. Both parties, however, spent more energy attacking each other’s credibility than debating policy details. Of Labour’s attacks on Reform, nearly two thirds were about credibility rather than programme, while Reform showed the same tendency in reverse.
To make sense of these choices, Dr. Luke turned to theories of party competition, which suggest that mainstream parties can respond to challengers in three ways: by ignoring them, by clashing with them, or by accommodating their positions. In the case of the local elections Labour leaned heavily into clashing, but this adversarial strategy carries its own dangers. Attacking Reform raised the profile of exactly the issues it wanted to highlight, making immigration more salient. Attempts at accommodation also created problems, since echoing Reform’s rhetoric on immigration may win over a handful of voters while alienating many more of Labour’s core supporters. As Dr. Luke put it, people prefer the original to the copy.
The broader lesson she drew was that mainstream parties face a paradox in responding to populist challengers who have little governing record. Parties like Reform are difficult to criticise on competence because they have not yet been tested in government, while parties like Labour are constrained by the realities of office. This creates a trap: over-promising fuels disillusion when delivery falls short, but negativity risks amplifying the populist message. Her advice was for Labour and other progressives to stick firmly to their strengths: the NHS, workers’ rights and social protection rather than chasing Reform onto hostile terrain. On issues like housing or health, campaigns should reframe grievances as the result of chronic underfunding and political choices, not the presence of migrants.
The discussion that followed underscored how widely these dilemmas are felt. Community organisers raised questions about how to counter anti-refugee sentiment around housing and hotels, and Dr. Luke stressed the importance of refocusing anger towards policy failures rather than scapegoating. Others asked whether Greens and Liberal Democrats should engage directly with Reform, and she noted that even these parties are now holding conference sessions on “how to beat Reform,” showing that no part of the political spectrum is untouched.
What emerged was a clear picture of a political environment where populist right parties are adept at linking grievances into simple narratives, while progressive parties risk becoming trapped between silence, imitation, or unhelpful attacks. Dr. Luke’s central point was that progressives need not accept this framing. By resisting the temptation to over-promise, by emphasising the issues they already own, and by maintaining a positive and credible message, they stand a better chance of avoiding the pitfalls of clashing with Reform.
—