Durham had been a Labour-run council until 2021, with the authority having a Liberal Democrat leader taking the reigns that year under a coalition with the Tories and independents. But Reform swept to victory in May 2025, winning 65 out of 98 seats.

Cllr Brown quit the party in a row about the party’s ambition in the area. He added: “I am 99.9% convinced that that’s the reason why. I’m a pretty good reader of people, and speaking to the various people, whether it’s the elected politicians or it’s the party bureaucracy behind it, it’s let’s just get you in, let’s get people who are loyal to Nigel in there, that’s the important thing.”

“Do not put local policies on, beyond very generic things like slash council waste, fix potholes, lower council tax. That sort of thing.”

He also claims that the council’s cabinet is “very heavily weighted” towards the North Durham constituency, where more of its members are based.

“That is seeing the vast majority of the investment,” Cllr Ross claimed.

A number of small business owners told the Express that they have not noticed any major changes since Mr Farage’s party took control of the council, except for a “get up and go” attitude regarding an upgrade to Durham city centre, suggesting that central Government policies fiscal and welfare policies are having more of an impact on them.

There is also frustration over the cancellation of an A68 bypass near Toft Hill and High Etherley after it was revealed that costs had tripled to £36 million.

There were calls for the road, which is used by some 7,500 vehicles a day, to be rerouted amid concerns about congestion, noise and air pollution.

Following his election last year, the leader of Durham County Council (DCC), Andrew Husband, said: “It is our ambition not to have another council tax increase next year.”

But in February, the rate was increased by 1.99%. This was still better than the potential increase of 3.1% previously proposed, before the authority received an injection of cash from the government.

In response to Cllr Brown’s claims, the deputy leader of Durham County Council, Darren Grimes, said: “We were told Reform would make a mess and be unable to run a council, now the charge is that we simply ‘manage the status quo’, our opponents need to make their minds up.

“Durham’s residents elected Reform because they were sick to death of the same old parties delivering the same old failure. We’ve been in control for less than a year, and we’re already challenging a Government that thinks County Durham is a dumping ground for fake asylum seekers — that’s not nothing, that’s exactly what people sent us there to do.”

The A68 bypass and other infrastructure projects are “years in the making”, Cllr Grimes said, adding that Reform “didn’t create the delays or the inflationary cost of delivery”, but inherited them.

He added: “If the Labour-ran North East Combined Authority wants to fund the bypass itself, we would welcome discussions.

“Anyone suggesting Reform is simply managing the status quo hasn’t been paying attention. We’re almost one year in. Watch this space.”

Reform Civil War on UK Council – “Nothing’s Being Done Until Nigel Farage Is PM”

Reform UK’s rapid expansion into local government has brought the party face to face with a challenge that is very different from fighting elections: actually running councils.

The party made major gains in England’s 2026 local elections, taking control of a number of councils and electing hundreds of councillors. But in some authorities, the transition from campaigning to governing has exposed disagreements over priorities, personalities and how quickly change can realistically be delivered.

One particularly striking claim circulating around a Reform-controlled council is that little can be achieved until Nigel Farage becomes prime minister.

The remark captures a tension that has appeared repeatedly in Reform’s local-government experiment: councillors elected on promises of rapid change are discovering that councils have limited powers and must operate within national legislation, financial rules and established administrative structures.

The argument is therefore not simply about Reform versus its political opponents. It is also about what Reform councillors can accomplish locally while the party remains in opposition at Westminster.

Reform’s rapid rise in local government

Reform’s breakthrough in local government came during the May 2026 elections, when the party made substantial gains across England.

The results gave Reform control of numerous councils and brought a large new group of councillors into local government.

For a party that had historically concentrated much of its political energy on Westminster elections, this represented a major organisational change.

But winning council seats and running councils are fundamentally different tasks.

Local authorities are responsible for areas such as social care, waste collection, planning, roads, housing services and a wide range of other functions. Their powers and budgets are governed by national legislation, while councils must also comply with statutory obligations.

That creates an immediate problem for any party promising rapid political change.

A councillor can campaign for a policy, but cannot necessarily implement it without a vote, a budget, legal authority and administrative capacity.

The Norfolk experience

Norfolk County Council provides one illustration of the difficulties Reform has encountered.

Reform became the largest party after the 2026 local elections but did not hold an outright majority. It subsequently formed an administration with the Liberal Democrats, despite major ideological differences between the two parties.

The first meeting of the new administration was reportedly tense, with disagreements and political heckling highlighting the difficulties of creating a functioning governing arrangement.

The situation demonstrated an important reality of local politics.

A party can win a large number of seats without automatically obtaining the freedom to govern exactly as it wishes.

Where no party has an outright majority, councillors must negotiate with other groups to pass budgets, appoint committees and approve policies.

For Reform, that can mean compromising with parties whose national political positions are fundamentally different from its own.

“Nothing can happen until Farage is PM”

The argument that local change must wait until Farage reaches Downing Street reflects Reform’s broader national strategy.

Farage has repeatedly presented Reform’s local successes as part of a longer-term campaign to change Britain’s national government.

In September 2026, he launched a programme promising major changes within the first 100 days of a Reform government. His message was that many of the problems Reform identifies cannot be fully resolved by councils because they depend on decisions made by central government.

Immigration is perhaps the clearest example.

Councils may be responsible for accommodating asylum seekers, providing certain local services or dealing with pressures created by population changes. But immigration rules, asylum policy, border enforcement and deportation powers are primarily matters for central government.

A Reform councillor therefore cannot simply implement the party’s national immigration programme from the town hall.

That distinction may explain why some Reform supporters believe that local government can only achieve limited change until the party controls Westminster.

But councils still have significant powers

That does not mean councils are powerless.

Local authorities control substantial budgets and have important responsibilities affecting people’s everyday lives.

Waste collection, planning decisions, council tax, local transport, housing policy and spending priorities can all have a direct impact on residents.

Reform councils have already begun pursuing policies reflecting the party’s political agenda.

Sunderland City Council, for example, recently ended its long-standing financial support for the anti-racism charity Show Racism the Red Card.

Council leader Christopher Eynon argued that the organisation had become too politically charged, while critics said the decision would damage anti-racism education.

That dispute illustrates the extent to which Reform-controlled councils can make decisions reflecting their political priorities even while the party remains outside national government.

The disagreement is not merely theoretical. Councillors have real authority over certain grants, programmes and local spending decisions.

Where the internal conflict comes from

The phrase “civil war” should therefore be treated cautiously.

Political parties frequently contain disagreements, particularly after a major electoral breakthrough.

Reform’s expansion has brought together people from different political backgrounds, including former Conservatives, long-standing Reform activists and councillors who entered politics more recently.

The Guardian reported in July that internal tensions existed within Reform over strategy, staffing and the balance of influence among senior figures. Some former Conservative defectors described disagreements between different factions of the expanding party.

More recently, the party has faced further controversy involving several Reform councillors who were reported to be members of a Facebook group linked to the Patriot Platform.

The allegations generated internal and external criticism, although some councillors denied or distanced themselves from the association.

These disputes demonstrate that Reform’s rapid expansion has brought organisational challenges alongside its electoral successes.

However, describing every disagreement as a “civil war” risks exaggerating what may instead be normal tensions within a rapidly growing political organisation.

The problem of expectations

Perhaps the biggest challenge facing Reform councils is the gap between campaign promises and the realities of local government.

During an election campaign, candidates can promise dramatic change.

Once elected, however, councillors inherit existing contracts, legal obligations, staff structures and financial commitments.

They cannot simply cancel every programme they dislike.

Councils also face rising demand for social care and other statutory services, limiting the amount of discretionary spending available to councillors.

The Financial Times recently examined Reform’s record after taking control of Staffordshire County Council and highlighted the difficulties involved in turning the party’s political promises into practical local-government policies.

That experience could become increasingly important as voters evaluate Reform’s performance in councils across England.

The Farage factor

Nigel Farage remains central to Reform’s political identity.

The party’s national campaign is closely associated with his leadership, and many voters identify Reform primarily with Farage.

That creates both an advantage and an organisational challenge.

If councillors believe the major changes promised by Reform can only happen after Farage enters Downing Street, they may focus heavily on national politics rather than the services immediately under their control.

But residents elect councillors to deal with local problems.

A resident concerned about potholes, rubbish collection or planning applications cannot necessarily wait for a future general election.

This creates a potential test for Reform’s local administrations: can they demonstrate tangible changes at council level while simultaneously arguing that national government is responsible for the biggest problems they want to solve?

The difference between local and national power

The distinction is particularly important because Reform’s political platform contains policies that councils simply cannot implement themselves.

Border control is a national responsibility.

Foreign policy is national.

Defence is national.

Most major tax decisions are made at Westminster.

A council can campaign for changes in these areas, but it cannot independently introduce a new immigration system or alter Britain’s relationship with other countries.

This means Reform councillors must decide how to balance ideological campaigning with the practical responsibilities of local government.

The answer may vary from one council to another.

What residents will ultimately judge

The most significant test for Reform’s councils will not necessarily be the internal arguments between councillors.

It will be their performance on the services residents actually experience.

Can councils balance their budgets?

Can they maintain essential services?

Can they improve roads, waste collection and local facilities?

Can they reduce unnecessary spending without damaging statutory services?

And can councillors work together sufficiently to govern effectively?

Those questions are more concrete than arguments about whether Farage should already be prime minister.

For Reform, successful local government could provide evidence that the party can translate its political promises into administration.

Conversely, persistent disagreements or failure to deliver visible improvements could create questions about whether the party’s national ambitions are matched by administrative capacity.

A new phase for Reform

Reform UK is now facing a political test that it did not have when it was primarily an insurgent Westminster party.

It has to govern.

The transition from opposition to administration inevitably creates friction. Councillors have to work within legal and financial constraints, sometimes alongside politicians from other parties.

At the same time, Reform’s national leadership continues to argue that many of Britain’s biggest problems can only be addressed from Westminster.

The statement that “nothing’s being done until Nigel Farage is PM” therefore captures one side of this tension, but it should not be taken literally as a description of everything happening inside Reform-controlled councils.

Local councils can make significant decisions now.

What they cannot do is implement the entirety of Reform’s national programme.

That distinction may become increasingly important as the party’s councillors gain experience.

The next stage of Reform’s political development will therefore involve more than electoral breakthroughs. It will involve demonstrating whether the party can govern effectively at local level while maintaining its national political identity.

For Farage, the councils provide an opportunity to show voters that Reform can move beyond campaigning.

For Reform councillors, meanwhile, the challenge is more immediate: residents expect services to work regardless of what happens at the next general election.

The tension between those two priorities may prove to be one of the defining features of Reform’s growing presence in British local government.