Claims Reform UK Has Taken Keir Starmer to the High Court Over Delayed Local Elections Spread Online

STARMER CHARGED – REFORM UK DRAGS PM TO HIGH COURT OVER CANCELLED 4 MILLION VOTES! 🚨
Keir Starmer has just been HIT with formal charges as Reform UK hauls him into the High Court in the most explosive legal assault on a sitting Prime Minister in decades!
The bombshell case – set for explosive hearings on February 19th and 20th – accuses Starmer of unlawfully postponing elections in 63 councils, wiping out nearly 4 million votes and disenfranchising entire communities to dodge a catastrophic Labour wipeout.
Labour claims it’s “local government reorganisation,” but Reform – riding a massive polling surge in those exact areas – calls it pure cowardice: a desperate power grab to avoid humiliation at the ballot box as Nigel Farage’s party surges and voters desert Starmer in droves.
Westminster is in meltdown: protests swelling outside Downing Street, Reform supporters chanting “Justice now!”, Labour MPs whispering about leadership panic, and legal experts warning this could force Starmer’s resignation if the court rules the postponements illegal.
REFORM JUST DECLARED WAR ON STARMER IN COURT – WILL THE HIGH COURT END HIS PREMIERSHIP IN FEBRUARY? THE VERDICT COULD CHANGE BRITAIN FOREVER!

Viral political posts are circulating across social media claiming that Reform UK has launched a High Court case against Prime Minister Keir Starmer over the postponement of local elections in dozens of councils.

According to the online claims, the legal challenge relates to delays linked to local government reorganisation, with critics arguing that the decision could affect millions of voters. Reform UK figures have publicly criticised the policy and described it as unfair to local communities.

However, at the time of writing, there is no official confirmation from the High Court or the UK government that the Prime Minister has been formally “charged” or that court hearings have been scheduled on the dates being shared online.

Government sources maintain that changes to council election timetables are connected to structural and administrative reforms, not political advantage. Legal experts note that any challenge would first need to pass procedural stages before reaching a full court hearing.

The claims have nevertheless reignited a wider debate over democratic processes, election timing and public trust in political decision-making.