Talk:Advance UK

Lead follows body

@Allan Nonymous, you restored content that contravenes WP:OPINION, and with the edit summary: "contradicts lede here".

Did you know that the lead is supposed to summarise the article content, not vice-versa? See WP:LEAD, especially where it says: "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". Also note how WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY puts it: "The sequence in which you edit should usually be: body first, lead second".

So I propose that we restore the more policy compliant body content, and then adjust the lead to match it. Do you have any objection to that? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I do per WP:WEASEL and consensus. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor, the way to avoid weasel, as we know, is to add in-line attribution for each opinion, not to assert an opinion as fact, even if it is held by half-a-dozen sources - per WP:OPINION. Note too that consensus does not trump Wiki policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Another pertinent quote from the same policy is: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice. That is exactly what we have in the article - different sources giving conflicting opinions. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

While the RfC is specific to the infobox it is probably the best consensus we have with regard to how to briefly describe this fringe party. I understand far-right parties don't like being called far-right but, I would suggest, if someone is concerned with the state of that consensus, they might want to consider a new RfC with a question tailored to representation in lead or in body depending on where they believe the disconnect needs to be resolved. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223, thanks for your input. However, the point I'm trying to make is that the wording contravenes the Wiki NPOV policy, so needs re-phrasing. Per WP:CONLEVEL: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Your interpretation that it's non-neutral is unproven. I would suggest a formal consensus building conversation could establish that. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223, my interpretation that it is non-neutral is proven by the fact that the assertion in the article saying "Advance UK is a far-right party" contravenes WP:NPOV.

It contravenes WP:NPOV because, as we saw above, NPOV says: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice, and we do have conflicting assertions made by different sources (we have sources saying it is "far right", "hard-right", "right-wing" and "fringe far-right"), hence we need to treat all those assertions as opinions and stop presenting "Advance UK is a far-right party" as a direct statement in wikivoice. I hope that clarifies my point further. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Far-right, hard-right and fringe far-right are synonyms. They mean functionally the same thing though "fringe far-right" suggests that they are particularly deep within the bowels of the far-right. This doesn't demonstrate non-neutrality in the slightest. A few sources incidentally calling them right-wing does not discount from that. Far-right parties are all, definitionally, right-wing. There is no neutrality problem. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223, the differing terms need to be explained as meaning the same thing then as we should not assume that readers are all political-science-aware, but aside from that, "Right-wing" still remains as an anomaly as although "far-right" may included in "right-wing" we cannot assume that by "right-wing" the sources using that term really mean "far-right". The inclusive solution there is to say "Advance UK is a right-wing party". -- DeFacto (talk). 14:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That ignores that the weight of sources call them hard or far-right. If you think otherwise you are welcome to seek a broader consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223, per WP:DUE (part of NPOV) you are required to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints". We cannot just ignore those reliable sources that don't go as far as to commit to "far-right". We could say the majority say X, but a significant minority say y, or whatever. Not only do we contravene NPOV by completely ignoring other views in the summaries, but the article risks losing even more credibility too. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

A description of 'far-right' does not conflict a description of 'right-wing'. 'Right-wing' is an umbrella rather than a precise description of position. 'Right-wing' encompasses 'far-right'. @S Marshall, explicitly called that out in their close of the RFC (Talk:Advance UK/Archive 1#RfC on if Advance Uk should be described as far-right or right-wing to far right). If you think their determination of consensus was incorrectly your path to addressing it is by challenging the close per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. TarnishedPath^talk 01:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Simonm223, both the bredth sources, and accordingly consensus is that Advance UK is a far-right party. The article lays this out in line with neutrality requirements Bejakyo (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bejakyo, what about the neutrality requirements that we do not assert opinions as facts, or that we represent all significant viewpoints? In what way does "Advance UK is a far-right party" comply with those requirements as it is asserting opinions as facts and it is not representing all significant viewpoints or even all the viewpoints mentioned elsewhere in the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that dispute the labelling of far-right? That is always a good place to start LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@LunaHasArrived, good point. I've been relying on the due diligence of previous contributors and concentrating just on what's already in the article, but I suppose there could be sources they've missed too. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

While the RFC question was specifically on the infobox and lead (the question was "Should Advance Uk be described as far-right or right-wing to far-right in the infobox and lead?"), what the RFC question was does not constrain consensus. Additionally given that the lead should follow the body, any questions about what the lead should state would have potential consequences for the body. TarnishedPath^talk 01:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you for pinging me to this discussion. I have just re-read my close of that earlier RfC, and I feel it was the correct close given the representations made at the time, but I should just like to add some more nuance.

I distinguish between my close of the RfC on the one hand, and my personal opinion about whether Advance UK are far right on the other.

When I close a RfC I'm required to assess what the community thinks. In November 2025 the community thought that the right descriptor for Advance UK, in the infobox, was "far right".

But here I'd like to give my personal thoughts, and I personally feel that it's somewhat harsh to call Advance UK "far right". I think we're going to continue to get representations from aggrieved people who feel that that is a harsh descriptor.

The reason why it's so problematic is that in British politics, "far right" has been the label for people like Nick Griffin and Paul Golding and Jim Dowson and Jayda Fransen. Actual fascists. And Advance UK are not that, and it's misleading to put them in the same pigeonhole.

What we actually need here is a label that means "slightly to the right of Reform UK but a long way left of Britain First". Our political language lacks one.

But it's not OK to just call them "right wing" either. They don't belong in the same pigeonhole as the Tories.—S Marshall T/C 08:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@S Marshall, cheers for contributing. I think you're making a definitional error. The far-right political position includes more than just fascists/neo-nazis. WP:WINARS aside, our article on the subject states:

Far-right politics are politics further to the right on the political spectrum than the standard political right. Far-right politics encompass a range of ideologies that are marked by ultraconservatism, authoritarianism, ultranationalism, radical anti-communism, ethnic nationalism, and nativism. This political spectrum situates itself on the far end of the right, distinguished from more mainstream right-wing ideologies by its emphasis on postliberalist and exclusivist views or opposition to liberal democracy. Far-right ideologies have historically included reactionary conservatism, fascism, and Nazism, while contemporary manifestations also incorporate neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, supremacism, and various other movements characterized by chauvinism, xenophobia, and theocratic or reactionary beliefs. Far-right terrorism consists of extremist, militant, or insurgent groups that attempt to realise their ideals through political violence rather than using democratic processes. TarnishedPath^talk 10:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I join issue with you on this point.

In your contribution above, you give a definition of "far right". It's a sourced, accurate, and neutral definition. But it isn't the definition. Rather, it's one of a range of definitions. Advance UK meet many definitions of "far right" but that doesn't make "far right" the best term to use.

Advance UK have yet to publish any political positions. They publish a limited range of policies, and each and every policy is clearly marked "draft". The sources are deducing their politics from the rhetoric and the history of the people involved.

In the circumstances we should be thinking about what the correct adjective is to place before the word "right". I wish we had given more thought to calling them "radical right", "populist right", or other similar alternative terms.

I repeat the point that the "far right" includes Britain First, the Christian Nationalist Party, and the English Defence League. Actual fascists. I feel it's misleading to use the same label for Advance UK and Reform UK.

TarnishedPath knows this next point very well but, just for the benefit of any onlookers who might be following this, I have determined that "far right" is the consensus. Even though it was me who closed the RfC, the fact that I have a somewhat different personal opinion does not undermine the RfC outcome in any way at all.—S Marshall T/C 13:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Far-right politics in the United Kingdom#Terminology. Please read. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Just did. If that article represents your view of the correct terminology, then I think you'd call them "populist radical right"?—S Marshall T/C 07:59, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

If it were based on my view and original research, then yes, I'm not disputing they probably fit into PRR rather than extreme right based on available information (or lack of), with PRR solely defined within the framework of far-right. It's the lack of sourcing for that which is why I wouldn't suggest it. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I've been staying out of this because yes, there was an RfC, and no, I don't strongly contest that Advance UK are far-right. From what I see, they certainly look as though they may be far-right, and people who are undoubtedly part of the far-right seem to like them. But as S Marshall has pointed out, we don't actually know this yet. S Marshall is right. We shouldn't be jumping to conclusions, and regardless of what we say in the article, we probably should not be collating this, yet, as part of a series of articles on the far right in Britain. That much is premature.

The term far-right is not a stable category and its meaning can shift across countries and periods. And that is a problem for a global encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is clearly not single authored, and the definition on one page is not the definition on another. See the introduction to this work and especially on the problem of definition. The term "far-right" is an analytical shorthand, not a precise legal or ideological classification. The term is often politicised in both academic and popular usage. Note also what they say about the Wikipedia entry, and think critically about it - they are right, because of the way we assemble articles.

But there is hope. Cas Mudde, who is prominent quoted on our page on the subject, has sought to produce a working definition of the far-right in a manner that has been widely (but not uncritically) accepted. Mudde's three pronged definition (nativism, authoritarianism, populism) is good (Mudde especially stresses nativism), but in the same way as, say, the Bebbington quadrilateral has elicited much debate in another area of history, Mudde's definition is not perfect (one criticism is that nativism and nationalism can be confounded). It will, however, probably (in my opinion) stand the test of time, and with modifications and caveats, will probably be seen to have isolated the defining aspects of the far-right. But look at this book review of Mudde's book: . McGlynn says:

He might have made more of the tendency for lazy and pejorative brandishing of all populist right‐wing politics as ‘far/hard/extreme right’ which is complacently dangerous, worryingly making it harder to identify the emergence of the very real threat from genuine, malevolent, extreme right movements.

And that is a suitable caution. Those who want to label this or any party as far-right may feel, in perfect good faith, that they are warning the reader about dangerous ideologies, but if all populist right-wing politics is so labelled, the label will lose its power, and the real threats will not be noticed. We can and should do better. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to describe Sean McGlynn as an academic expert, too.—S Marshall T/C 10:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

we probably should not be collating this, yet, as part of a series of articles on the far right in Britain, agree with you here having reviewed the parent article. There is still no mention of Advance UK there, which is predominantly due to lack of significance more than anything else, even if there should be a passing mention within the context of the split from Reform UK (edit: see below). For example there are other parties that are mentioned in that article in passing, such as White Defence League and National Labour Party (UK), which are also not considered part of the series as it were (for similar reasons I assume), although naturally they are included in the navbox template (as they should be I believe). British National Party (1960) (note: 1960s, not 1980s) is somewhat of an outlier here; it's included as part of the series but is lacking a section summary beyond passing mention, given per the article: the BNP grew to become the largest political party on the far right, which is very much significant to that time period, and pivotal to the creation of the National Front. There are probably a few others like that as well, ie articles lacking summaries within the context of the parent article. I added a few but there is still more work to do.

However the last paragraph comes across as WP:RGW. It was part of the argument in the WP:REFORMRFC, that despite the weight of academic sourcing, we shouldn't label the party as far-right because Tim Bale think it's "unhelpful", even if according to Bale, most academics would agree with the label. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, having read the article again, the support from Robinson and sponsoring the Unite the Kingdom rally do firmly place it within the series imo, and would go beyond passing mention, similar to the BFP which is summarised within the context of EDL. Tough the rest of the point remains (but more so this is like BNP 1960s lack of due summary). CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The last paragraph is not RGW, it is saying we should avoid RGW. The point is general and not particular to the description in the text of this page, and I am not suggesting revisiting the RfC outcome. But... now we are talking about it: all the RfC sources are from newspapers, aren't they? This is because that's all we have to work with. But the penchant for writing so-called encyclopaedic articles based on information distilled from newspapers is peculiarly Wikipedian. I can't see Wikipedia editors ever resisting the temptation to rush to write articles parroting what they see in news media, but McGlynn's caution ought to apply to journalists (and you know it won't), as well as to those who wish to critically distill what journalists say (which, to my mind, is premature synthesis, but that's a matter of the historiography, which is lacking here). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• @TarnishedPath, please revert this edit of yours in which you removed the POV tag from the 'Ideology and policy' section. As this discussion, which is pointed to by that tag, is still open, the removal of that tag contravenes WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT and WP:DETAG. The POV issue is described above - it is basically the assertion of an opinion as if a fact in Wiki's voice, which contravenes WP:NPOV, and as we all (should) know, local consensus cannot overrule policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  Can we all please stop arguing over the tag? It's very clear that parties to this edit dispute are engaged in talk either way. I have no personal objection to the tag remaining in the article until this discussion concludes. But, I want to make this clear, if it becomes clear as the discussion continues that the RfC consensus is valid to extend to this issue and there is no substantial disputation of that consensus built upon new sources then the discussion should be closed. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  @DeFacto, as far as I've been able to work out, you're argument rests on the premise that the description is WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED. LunaHasArrived asked you above to provide sourcing to support that position; however, I don't see that you've taken up that opportunity. You state that "local consensus cannot overrule policy", but I don't see that you've supported your policy contention.

  In short, there is no reason for the tag to stay. If you think everyone else is wrong, feel free to start a RFC with a broader question than the previous one. TarnishedPath^talk 08:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath, well, I'll re-iterate if it wasn't clear. WP:OPINION is the main policy section. It says: Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views.

  Do we agree that all the sources we have are expressing the views of their authors, and so are very much subject to this policy requirement? The WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED section explains how to judge whether an assertion in a source is a fact or an opinion when it says: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice. Given that some of the sources in this case express opinions that are not a sub-set of "far-right", we have exactly that condition here, so are obliged to treat all the assertions as opinions. Is that not clear?

  Hence, we cannot, per those sections of the WP:NPOV policy, assert anywhere in the article that "Advance UK is a far-right party" and the tag is valid whilst some sources say the party is something that is not necessarily far-right, and we continue assert that they are. If we were to start an RfC, the question should be: "Are the reliable sources unanimous that Advance UK is far-right?

  As I said above, with the current article content, the removal of that tag contravenes WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT and WP:DETAG. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Some of the sources you've provided above state that they are "right-wing" as discussed by a number of editors, that is not an assertion that they are not "far-right". "Right-wing" is a term which is inclusive of the term "far-right". This was also discussed in the RFC close. I don't see that you have any argument here. You are not the arbiter of WP policy. Consensus has already spoken on this. TarnishedPath^talk 09:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath, we cannot assume that them saying "right-wing" means "far-right" though as they are not synonymous, and "right wing" does not necessarily mean "far-right". OTOH, "right-wing" does encompass "far-right", so we could comfortably assert: "Advance UK is a right wing party". We could even qualify that by adding something like 'with [some/many] sources describing it as "far-right", [and whatever else we have]'. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  "we cannot assume that them saying "right-wing" means "far-right""

  We can assume that "right-wing" is inclusive of "far-right", because this is how the term is used. It's common usage. Again, refer to the prior RFC close. TarnishedPath^talk 10:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, we know that '"right-wing" is inclusive of "far-right"', but that still does not imply that we can assert that "Advance UK is a far-right party", because, per the WP:NPOV sections mentioned above, that asserts that that is the only opinion amongst the sources and that there are no other opinions. And that is evidently not supported - we do not know if that is what the sources calling it right wing meant, because they do not tell us. To assume otherwise is WP:OR. What is wrong with keeping this indisputably neutral - which would avoid a lot of the day-to-day churn in the article and a lot of the time wasted on this talk page? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  We aren't engaging in OR. We're giving preference to more-specific sources. Again, there are an abundance of sources calling this party far-right, hard-right and fringe far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Do you mean ignoring some of the reliable sources? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Oh for crying out loud you need to demonstrate these other reliable sources actually contradict that this party is far-right in some way. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Simonm223, from th article we are discussing:

  It has also been classified as "hard-right". The Spectator, The Daily Telegraph and BBC News have more broadly labelled it as "right-wing". Suzanne Breen in the Belfast Telegraph referred to the party as right-wing. The party has been described by Sean O'Grady in The Independent as part of the fringe far-right, and as potentially extremist. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation described Advance UK's founding conference in the North East as "a troubling development" and described the party as right-wing.

  They do not unambiguously say it is far-right, they clearly call it something else and cannot be simply ignored. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Did you read The JRF source? Because it's entirely about the rise of the far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Simonm223, our summary should be based on the content of the article. If you think there is some on-topic and relevant info to the subject of this article in that source then feel free to add it, but you cannot expect readers to have to read through the sources to understand what is written in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  No, my point is that one of the two sources you assert disputes the far-right characterization is entirely about far-right groups. Your expectation of repetitious phrasing within the body of the article suggests cherry-picking quotes rather than reading the context of the source. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't say that any of the sources dispute the far-right label, I say that that label is not supported by the current content of the article - that's a different thing - and that is what matters, especially to readers. I assume, in good faith, that what is written in that section of the article is supported by the sources cited against it. Are you saying that the content supported by that particular source does not reflect the source? If so then why don't you fix it?

  I never added any of that content, or the sources - that was all already in the article before my first edit here. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Ok this is starting to get tedious. Your argument against calling them far-right in wiki-voice was the presence of two sources that used the term right-wing. I read one of those sources and found that it was entirely about the proliferation of far-right activity in the English north-east. I have yet to read the second source but, as the vast preponderance of sources situate this party as far-right your argument against use of this language is dependent on an outlier and one that you may be misinterpreting. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  For clarity the reason I haven't read the Breen article yet is because I can't get around the paywall using any of the normal methods I would try. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  As I said, I was assuming the sources supported the content attributed to them. If that is not the case then fix the content. Until that happens we can only go by what the article currently says. And btw, WP:POV in WP:DUE says:s Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Currently there seem to be 5 or 6 sources being used to support categorisations other than "far-right", so not an insignificant number. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath, includes it, yes - but without the sources being that specific we cannot assume they mean "far-right". That would be WP:OR. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  No it would not be WP:OR, because that is how the term is used. We use the English language here which means we accept the definition of things to be their common usages. Once again refer to the prior RFC. If you have a problem with it, your recourse is WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. TarnishedPath^talk 12:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not challenging the close, I'm supporting my argument that that statement we are discussing demonstrably contravenes WP:NPOV.

  As for the OR - WP:OR says: Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Are you saying that summarising the sources that say "hard right", "right wing" and "fringe far-right" as all saying "far-right" doesn't reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated in them? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Integrity Party

I propose that this line: "formerly the Integrity Party" should be removed from the lead, it was never registered with the Electoral Commission, and according to Companies House was merely the name of the legal identity behind the party until 30 June 2025.

As from The i Paper source: "Technically, Habib is not spawning a completely new party. Rather, he’s moving into the shell of an organisation which was set up last year by two other people, Christian Russell and Richard Shaw." It goes on to quote Habib: “It’s a vehicle set up by two gentlemen who were pressing me to do something with it ever since they set it up."

WP:WEIGHT / WP:LEAD: The "Integrity Party" was a pre-launch, non-operational shell registration until Habib took control and completely overhauled the structure to publicly launch Advance UK in June 2025. The name carries no independent notability and giving it first-sentence creates undue weight; in the article body, its section takes up a couple of sentences. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

History dissolution is outdated

The party's history section does not state that the party has not been dissolved, and the vote that took place clearly stated that the party would be preserved as far as possible, and their statements do not mention having deregistered after the vote. ~2026-34744-01 (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

These two per the article by looks of it.. I'll summarise in lead for now, if there are no objections I'll update the tense of the article. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Do we know what this means? Are they deregistering as political party but continuing in some other capacity or shutting up shop completely? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, good point. Checking the primary source here: [...] whilst Advance should go on campaigning and making policy, it should not add to a confused political landscape.It should de-register as a political party. And, ideally, it should merge with the Great British Political Action Committee, also [...] we will be putting this to a membership vote in the coming weeks. So it hasn't folded as an organisation, only intent to de-register. Best to wait for now then I guess. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

If you or anyone else wants to check the status of the party, check their official page. I have already quoted what they have said (although no one responded after asking me for sources) and according to what can be read, the party has not been deregistered, much less dissolved. ~2026-35202-73 (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Do we have WP:SECONDARY sources though? CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor Most of the sources I've found don't mention the vote, and they are mostly left-wing sources accusing the party, or Rupert Lowe in relation to Ben Habib, of being fascists. In any case, the vote is real and you can check it on their website, as they announce the results there and that the party will be preserved as much as possible: https://www.advanceuk.org.uk/your_ballot_the_result_and_what_happens_next ~2026-34744-01 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I base it on what they themselves have said:

"Our member ballot opened at midday on Friday 5 June. It was due to close at midday on Sunday 7 June 2026, but we extended voting until 10pm so that as many people as possible could cast their ballot. We are writing to give you the result and to tell you what happens next.

The result

Votes in favor: 6,442 (87%)

Votes against: 921 (13%)

Total votes cast: 7,363

The ballot was certified by an independent verifier, David Atherton, on Monday 8 June 2026.

This is a clear and strong result. By a large margin, members have agreed to support the proposal put forward by the College to join forces with the Great British PAC. We are grateful for the strength of that mandate.

Why this ballot matters

The College is the body of elected members that helps guide the party on questions of this nature. The College examined the proposal and supported it, subject to vote by the members.

The members also backed it.

What happened during the vote

On Saturday morning, Mr. Tim Power locked out the party's staff and volunteers from our systems. He then proceeded to send an unauthorized email to our contact list seeking to disrupt the ballot. Mr Power was the party's Interim Chief Operating Officer at the time but, after these actions, he was immediately removed from that role.

Our technical team restored normal access to our systems within hours.

This matter is now with our lawyers and legal action may follow. There is therefore a limit to what we can say at this stage, and we ask for your patience. A separate note from our data protection team will follow this email.

Mr. Power's unauthorized email made a number of false claims about the party and the proposal. In seeking to block the ballot he sought to prevent members from having their democratic say. Fortunately I failed.

Now that the members have voted, we will work through the details, put the right arrangements in place, and ensure the appropriate safeguards are established.

What do you eat next

The members have spoken.

We recognize that this is a significant moment, and that a number of those who voted against will not welcome the outcome. We respect that. But we are confident this is the right path for the country.

Joining with the Great British Political Action Committee gives us greater reach and greater strength to fight for the things that brought us together. It also allows the party to be preserved as much as possible in case it is needed to re-form at some point in the future.

Thank you for your support, your patience, and your trust. Our particular thanks go to the volunteers and staff who gave up almost their entire weekend. They helped through the process and answered a large number of questions with care and patience. The vote ran smoothly because of them.

We will be updating you in due course. We are very much looking forward to the next stage and remain unwavering in our commitment to the vital task of saving our country.

Ben Habib

Leader, Advance UK"

They also published it on their official website in the news section:

https://www.advanceuk.org.uk/your_ballot_the_result_and_what_happens_next

They published this on their social networks on June 8 as a result of their vote and this was published on June 3, which was when they announced their intention to put the future of the party to a vote:

"Members are being asked to make a clear choice about the future of Advance UK.

The Advance UK college has voted for and is backing a proposal by our Leader Ben Habib that Advance UK joins forces with the Great British PAC (GB PAC), allowing our members, supporters and shared mission to continue through a stronger, unified organisation. If we join forces the GBPAC, we preserve the party, so they can easily relaunch if required.

The alternative is for Advance UK to deregister as a political party and cease operations. Members are asked to choose which of these two paths they wish to support.

Voting will open at 12:00 pm today, Friday 5 June 2026, and will close at 12:00 pm on Sunday 7 June 2026, allowing a full 48-hour period for your ballots to be cast. The vote will then be verified and announced as soon as that process has concluded, which will be Sunday afternoon at the earliest.

To vote you will need to click the link in your email inbox where you must enter either your membership number or the email address you used when you joined the party." ~2026-34870-31 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

In short, what can be summarized from all this is that, for the moment, they haven't officially announced their withdrawal, and I don't think they will. I do believe the party won't be politically active until it gains sufficient strength, but if you look at their social media, Ben Habib and Advance UK are quite active, which makes it clear that the party hasn't disappeared; rather, it's in a reorganization phase. And for now, Ben Habib prefers to support Rupert Lowe and his Restore Britain party. ~2026-34870-31 (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The dissolution date is incorrect and no one has corrected it.

Apparently, no one has checked what I said or the party's website. You're relying on outdated information, since the website states on June 8th, the day of the vote, that the party would be preserved as much as possible, and although it's not participating in elections, it remains active.

https://www.advanceuk.org.uk/your_ballot_the_result_and_what_happens_next

It clearly states this there; it's NOT an external interpretation by a journalist, a political scientist, etc. It's the party itself stating that they still exist, and I quote part of what it says:

"Joining with the Great British Political Action Committee gives us greater reach and greater strength to fight for the things that brought us together. It also allows the party to be preserved as much as possible in case it is needed to reform at some point in the future." ~2026-39965-78 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

And this news was published yesterday regarding their union with Great British PAC:

https://www.advanceuk.org.uk/welcome_to_the_great_british_pac_ben_habib_s_message_to_advance_uk_members

Even though the party was deregistered, there was never any mention of Advance UK dissolving as an entity or abandoning political activity; in fact, the previous news item (which apparently no one read) refers to reforming the party—essentially, if they wish to re-register. And while it may be a technicality, dissolving is not the same thing as ceasing to be registered. ~2026-39965-78 (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)