‘Stop the Boats, Stop the Waste’: How Reform UK Took Control in Kent

Kent, with its chalk cliffs and close proximity to Calais, has become Britain’s symbolic and logistical frontline in the ongoing small boat migration crisis. Since 2018, small boat crossings have become a near-daily feature along the coast from Broadstairs to Dungeness. While the numbers arriving fluctuate year to year, one thing has not wavered: the political pressure migration places on this southeastern county.

On 1 May 2025, that pressure translated into political transformation. Reform UK, a party often described as right-wing populist but whose messaging is laser-focused on national identity and local discontent, took control of Kent County Council and nine others. The link between migration and this result is not incidental. It is direct, visible, and central to Reform’s message.

Migration by Numbers: A Kent-Specific Phenomenon with National Roots

Between 1 January 2018 and 8 May 2025, a total of 162,654 migrants arrived in the UK via 4,498 small boats, according to Home Office figures. The vast majority of these crossings occur along the Kent coast.

These figures reflect not just an abstract national trend but a physical presence witnessed by Kent residents. As one voter in Folkestone put it: “We see the boats, we see the Border Force vans, we see the hotels.”

What makes the situation unique to Kent is that it is not just affected by policy but by geography. While immigration is a national issue debated in Westminster, in Kent it is lived, local, and constant.

Who is Arriving? The Nationality Profile of Small Boat Migrants

The majority of those arriving by small boat since 2018 have come from five countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. According to the Migration Observatory, these nationalities account for approximately two-thirds of all small boat crossings. Most are male and arrive without documentation.

This demographic and national diversity reflects the complexity of the crisis. Many of these individuals are fleeing war, persecution, or humanitarian collapse in their home countries. However, in Kent, that humanitarian narrative has steadily given way to more urgent local concerns—particularly the pressure placed on housing, healthcare, education, and other services.

But beyond the strain, frustration has deepened over the lack of removals. Despite the tough rhetoric on deportations, very few of those arriving by small boat are actually returned. As the Migration Observatory reports:

“Around 1.3% of people who arrived by small boat from 2018 to June 2023 were returned from the UK during that period.”

The figures are stark. Between 2018 and June 2023, 96,318 migrants arrived by small boat. Only 1,252 were removed from the UK. For many voters—particularly those who supported Reform UK—this perceived imbalance between arrival and enforcement has become a potent symbol of a broken system. It is not just the numbers arriving, but the lack of action afterward that fuels the political backlash and the perception the rest are being housed, and given access to benefits; which is not the case. But “a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has put its boots on.“

The Cost of Control: £15 Billion and Counting

While much of the national conversation on Channel crossings has focused on smugglers and moral debates, mounting evidence now reveals a different cost — a financial one, borne by taxpayers and felt acutely in places like Kent.

According to an April 2025 report produced by Universities of Liverpool, York, Sheffield and Nottingham who are exploring UK government responses to small boat Channel crossings, more than £5.02 billion in public contracts directly linked to small boat crossings have been awarded for enforcement, surveillance, asylum processing, and detention services. An additional £1 billion in open-tenders for border management contracts connected to Channel operations. The spreadsheet of contractors can be downloaded ⇒ here

The report also revealed the extent to which large private firms dominate the border economy. Major contracts have gone to multinational defence and security contractors such as Serco, Mitie, Tekever, and the Bristow Group, some of which are also involved in defence sectors that contribute to displacement abroad. As Dr. Tesfalem Yemane from the University of Liverpool noted,

“Behind every piece of infrastructure, every form of surveillance, and even behind every rescue and processing of Channel migrants, there are private companies working to win contracts and extract profit from government spending and the exploitation of the most vulnerable.”

Critics argue that this system creates a perverse cycle: public money fuels border enforcement while political instability and war, sometimes exacerbated by the same companies’ defence contracts, drive migration. This structural critique of the “border-industrial complex” resonates deeply in Kent, where the impacts are felt firsthand.

One of the most visible costs has been migrant hotel accommodation. In 2020/21, it stood at £1.3 billion. In 2023/24 this  that figure had more than doubled to £3 billion, averaging £8 million per day — and that’s for just a single year.

In total, UK spending on channel crossing contracts, migrant hotel accommodation — ie: migration management — between 2018 and April 2025, exceeded £15 billion and by 2029 will have exceeded £28bn.

To residents of Kent, this isn’t just a statistic. Kent County Council’s annual budget is £1.53 billion — a fraction of what the UK has spent nationally on migration-related services, a large portion of which has materialised in Kent in the form of hotels, transport hubs, and processing facilities.

This financial imbalance has become a focal point of community frustration: roads left unrepaired, adult social care under strain, school budgets squeezed — while border enforcement infrastructure expands and emergency services remain stationed at the coast.

This disparity is not just economic — it’s emotional and political. It has shaped how Kent residents understand government priorities and has become a powerful symbol of neglect and mismanagement. Reform UK tapped directly into this sentiment they heard on the door step time and again — and as the rest of the article explores, they have used it to redefine the county’s political landscape.

Reform UK: Clear Messaging, Resonant Policies

This contrast between local austerity and national migration expenditure formed the backbone of Reform UK’s campaign in Kent. Reform did not need a full manifesto to gain traction; they offered something more powerful: clarity. Their message was succinct and consistent — stop the boats, audit the spending, and put Kent first.

Nigel Farage made headlines when he called for a Trump-style “DOGE in every county” — a Department of Government Efficiency. Kent’s new leader Linden Kemkaran echoed this by saying she’ll open the council’s books to auditors – which auditors she hasn’t made clear – even though KCC is audited by its own internal team as well as by external auditors by Grant Thornton.

These are not abstract slogans. They are policies rooted in local frustrations, amplified by the visible presence of border enforcement and humanitarian infrastructure.

Farage’s and Kemkaran’s rhetoric, often criticised as simplistic, has proved potent in areas where the effects of national policy are acutely local. The promise to redirect government focus from ideological commitments to pragmatic community investment has resonated across county lines, even if the narrative is not supported by fact.

Understanding the Reform Voter: Not Just Protest, But Purpose

To understand Reform’s success is not to agree with every one of their positions. But it is clear that their appeal lies in linking the national to the local. In Kent, migration is not just a Westminster issue. It is part of the physical and economic fabric of everyday life. To think otherwise one is deluded.

According to analysis by the BBC, Reform’s surge was strongest in communities most exposed to the visible and financial impacts of migration.

This was not simply a protest vote. Reform voters interviewed across Kent spoke of being ignored by both major parties, and of a disconnect between national rhetoric and local reality. What Reform offered was coherence and immediacy: a narrative that explained why Kent services were stretched, why money was tight, and what could be done about it.

And while other parties speak in cautious, often bureaucratic language about migration, Reform presents a direct, uncompromising message: stop the boats, stop the waste.

Conclusion: A County Reflects a Country

Kent is no outlier. It is a mirror. The issues that have shifted its political tides — migration, fiscal control, local services — are present across the UK. What Kent shows is that where these issues are felt most intensely, voters are ready to defy tradition.

Reform UK may not yet run the nation, but from Dover to Dartford, Thanet to Tonbridge, Reform UK now run Kent. Their rise is a warning to national parties: migration is not just a border issue. It is a budget issue. A public services issue. A political issue. And, most of all, a deeply local one.

If mainstream parties fail to match that clarity and local focus, Reform’s foothold in Kent could soon become a blueprint for broader national gains if those in power fail to Stop the Boats and Stop the Waste.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness