I came across this comment on Facebook today:
‘I came across some Reform fans on a regional rags Facebook page last night. Good grief. They insist all knife crime is committed by immigrants. I informed them that the majority of knife crime is committed by youths and is linked to drugs. Fact! But no, they were not having that. I was accused of watching the BBC news because it is left-wing.
I was then accused of being a Starmerite who gets his kicks from robbing pensioners. We then moved onto the Southport murders and the child murderer, Axel Rudakubana. They said to me, Is he not an immigrant?” I replied, ‘No, he was born in Cardiff, Wales, so a British man has committed an evil crime. This is when the balloon went up. They said and insisted that he is a terrorist. I asked them to listen to what the judge said; that it was not a terrorist act. ‘Bollox’ was the reply from one guy who claimed to be an ex-Para (strange how they are all ex-Paras). This is when the thread was taken down by admin. I tell you, we are screwed in this country when we have people who think all brown people are immigrants who carry knives and then refuse to listen to the facts. We are truly fecked.’
I decided then to investigate why so many people, especially those who support Reform UK, UKIP and the Brexit party have been so inclined to get angry with those who provide facts. What is it about reality that creates such an emotional response? I knew that it was linked to low educational outcomes primarily and the inability to think critically but I also wanted to ascertain what other factors were at play. The following is my perspective following my research. If I have missed anything please let me know in the comments below.
In recent years, political discourse in the United Kingdom has witnessed an increasing divide between expert opinion and public perception. Nowhere is this more evident than in the support base for populist movements such as UKIP, the Brexit Party, and more recently, Reform UK. Among these voters, particularly those with lower levels of formal education, a striking pattern emerges: a marked scepticism towards facts and evidence presented by experts that those who support these parties associate (often incorrectly) as the “establishment.” This resistance to facts appears to have baffled political commentators, social scientists, and policymakers alike.
But this phenomenon is not, it seems, merely a product of individual biases or emotional appeals from populist leaders. Governments themselves may have an interest in perpetuating mistrust of facts. By encouraging division, framing political issues as battles between opposing factions, and undermining trust in shared sources of truth, they can maintain control and deflect scrutiny from systemic failures.
The following makes scary reading and brings to mind the Myth of Sisyphus.
1. The Rise of Mistrust in Institutions
One of the most significant factors driving scepticism among Reform UK, UKIP, and Brexit Party voters appears to be a profound mistrust of institutions. Over decades, trust in traditional pillars of society, such as the government, media, and academia, has eroded, particularly among working-class communities. Many of these voters perceive these institutions as being detached from their lives, prioritising globalisation and elite interests over the needs of ordinary citizens.
A History of Betrayal
This mistrust did not emerge overnight. For decades, working-class communities, particularly in former industrial heartlands, have felt abandoned by successive governments. Deindustrialisation in the 1980s, coupled with austerity policies in the 2010s, created widespread disillusionment. Promises of regeneration often fell flat, leaving entire communities struggling with unemployment, poor infrastructure, and underfunded public services. As a result, these voters became increasingly sceptical of political elites who appeared to ignore their plight.
Institutional Mistrust as a Tool of Control
Governments have not only failed to repair this mistrust but, in some cases, have actively exploited it. By framing political discourse around “us vs. them” narratives, whether it’s rural communities vs. urban elites, or British citizens vs. immigrants, governments create a fertile ground for division. This serves to distract the public from systemic failings, such as widening economic inequality or inadequate public investment. When people mistrust institutions and experts, they are less likely to unite around shared grievances and more likely to engage in infighting, making it easier for governments to retain power.
2. The Role of Education in Shaping Worldviews
Education plays a significant role in how individuals process and respond to information. Research consistently shows that individuals with lower levels of formal education are less likely to trust experts and are more susceptible to populist rhetoric. This is not to suggest that less-educated voters are inherently less intelligent but rather that they often have fewer tools to critically evaluate complex information.
Lack of Access to Critical Thinking Skills
Formal education often equips individuals with critical thinking skills that allow them to evaluate evidence, question authority, and discern credible sources. However, when access to quality education is limited, as it often is in deprived areas, people are left more vulnerable to manipulation. For example, during the Brexit campaign, complex arguments about trade, economics, or EU regulations were less likely to resonate than simple, emotive slogans like “Take Back Control.”
Education and the Maintenance of Division
Governments that fail to prioritise education reform may inadvertently, or deliberately, perpetuate this dynamic. An under-educated populace is easier to manipulate through emotionally charged rhetoric and less likely to hold leaders accountable for misleading claims. By failing to provide equal access to education, governments can maintain a cycle of disengagement and mistrust, ensuring that voters remain divided and focused on competing narratives rather than systemic inequalities.
3. The Emotional Power of Identity Politics
At the heart of populist movements like UKIP and the Brexit Party lies a powerful appeal to identity politics. These parties have successfully tapped into feelings of nostalgia, national pride, and a desire to reclaim a sense of control. For many voters, these emotional appeals hold far greater sway than factual arguments.
Exploiting Fear and Loss
Globalisation and rapid social change have left many working-class communities feeling alienated. The influx of immigration, changing cultural norms, and the perceived erosion of traditional British values have created a sense of loss and displacement. Populist leaders have capitalised on these sentiments, framing themselves as defenders of the “real” Britain against an out-of-touch establishment.
Division as a Political Tool
Governments often allow or encourage identity politics to dominate the discourse because it fosters division. By pitting groups against one another, whether it’s “leavers” vs. “remainers” or the working class vs. immigrants, leaders can deflect attention from broader systemic issues. Instead of uniting to demand accountability from those in power, the public becomes mired in internal conflict, making meaningful collective action more difficult.
4. The Role of Cognitive Biases
Cognitive biases further explain why some voters reject facts in favour of populist rhetoric. These biases are not unique to low-educated voters or supporters of populist parties but are more pronounced in contexts where mistrust and emotional appeals dominate.
Confirmation Bias and Division
One of the most significant biases at play is confirmation bias; the tendency to seek out information that confirms pre-existing beliefs while ignoring evidence to the contrary. Politicians and media outlets often exploit this bias by presenting issues in binary terms, reinforcing divisions. For example, during the Brexit referendum, much of the discourse focused on “us vs. them” narratives, which reinforced existing prejudices and drowned out nuanced debate.
Motivated Reasoning and Government Narratives
Governments can also benefit from motivated reasoning, where individuals interpret information in a way that aligns with their emotional desires. By framing political issues as moral battles, such as defending national sovereignty or protecting British values, leaders can foster loyalty among their base while making them more resistant to contradictory evidence.
5. The Information Ecosystem: Social Media and Government Manipulation
The modern information ecosystem plays a crucial role in shaping voters’ perceptions. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter (X), Tik Tok and YouTube have created echo chambers where individuals are exposed only to information that reinforces their beliefs. But governments themselves can play a role in manipulating this ecosystem.
The Spread of Misinformation
While misinformation on social media often appears organic, governments can amplify its effects. By failing to regulate platforms or, in some cases, exploiting them to spread propaganda, leaders can sow confusion and mistrust. For example, during the Brexit campaign, misleading claims about EU regulations or immigration were not only circulated by grassroots groups but also legitimised by political leaders who had a vested interest in framing the EU as an adversary.
Distracting from Accountability
When misinformation dominates the discourse, it becomes easier for governments to avoid accountability. If voters are preoccupied with debates over cultural identity or conspiracies about foreign influence, they are less likely to scrutinise domestic policies or demand transparency from their leaders.
6. Populist Rhetoric and Manufactured Division
Populist leaders like Nigel Farage have mastered the art of simplifying complex issues into emotionally charged messages. These narratives often frame the public as victims of an elite conspiracy, diverting attention from systemic failings and creating an “enemy” to rally against.
Division as a Long-Term Strategy
Manufacturing division is not only a short-term tactic but also a long-term strategy for maintaining control. When voters are divided into camps based on identity, ideology, or class, it becomes far more challenging for them to unite around shared goals. This division serves to weaken opposition movements, ensuring that power remains concentrated in the hands of the few.
How to Wake Up!
Waking up to the manipulation behind misinformation and division involves every one of us and begins with rebuilding trust in institutions and communities. People are more likely to believe in facts and solutions when they see tangible changes in their lives. Grassroots initiatives and community-driven projects that directly address issues like unemployment, infrastructure, and public services can demonstrate that governments and leaders are working in their interests. Equally, empowering citizens through decision-making processes—such as citizens’ assemblies—restores their agency and reduces feelings of alienation. These steps foster a sense of belonging and connection that counters the divisive narratives of populism.
Education plays a pivotal role in breaking cycles of mistrust and misinformation. Accessible programmes designed for adults, as well as an emphasis on media literacy in schools, can equip individuals with the critical thinking skills needed to evaluate complex information. Additionally, helping people understand how manipulation works—by exposing the mechanics of misleading social media algorithms or false political claims—can empower them to challenge their beliefs. By reframing facts as part of relatable, human-centred stories rather than dry statistics, truth can be made emotionally resonant, helping to combat the pull of populist rhetoric.
At the heart of “waking up” lies empathy and connection. Instead of shaming or ridiculing those who hold false beliefs, fostering dialogue rooted in understanding and patience can create opportunities for reflection and growth. By focusing on shared challenges—such as inequality, corruption, or poor public services—conversations can shift away from divisive “us vs. them” rhetoric to solutions that benefit everyone. Highlighting relatable stories of individuals who have questioned their beliefs and found common ground can inspire others to embark on similar journeys.
Finally, unity and collective action are vital in the process of awakening. Encouraging participation in community-building efforts, such as mutual aid projects or local initiatives, helps individuals rediscover their agency and reconnect with a shared purpose. These collective experiences can weaken the emotional hold of divisive narratives and replace mistrust with solidarity. Change, however, is incremental and requires persistence. Small shifts in perspective, encouraged by ongoing empathy and support, can ultimately lead to a broader realisation of how misinformation has manipulated and divided society. The path to waking up is not about changing minds overnight but about fostering a culture of reflection, unity, and hope.
In Summary
I have thus discovered that the refusal to believe facts among some Reform UK, UKIP, and Brexit Party voters is not merely a reflection of individual biases or ignorance. It is a product of a deeply fractured political and social landscape, where mistrust, division, and manipulation serve the interests of those in power. By understanding how these dynamics are perpetuated, and recognising the role that governments play in fostering them, we can begin to chart a path towards a more informed, united, and equitable society. Together.
