Reform UK chairman Zia Yusuf reverses decision to quit party
Reform UK chairman Zia Yusuf has reversed his decision to quit the party, saying "the mission is too important" and that he "cannot let people down".
Instead, he will return in a new role, heading up an Elon Musk-inspired "UK DOGE team".
In a statement on X, he said: "Over the last 24 hours I have received a huge number of lovely and heartfelt messages from people who have expressed their dismay at my resignation, urging me to reconsider.
"After 11 months of working as a volunteer to build a political party from scratch, with barely a single day off, my tweet was a decision born of exhaustion."
He added: "I know the mission is too important and I cannot let people down.
"So, I will be continuing my work with Reform, my commitment redoubled."
Mr Yusuf said he would be returning in a new role, seemingly focusing on cuts and efficiency within government.
He said he would "fight for taxpayers, as well as working on party policy and representing it in the media."
"I will continue to give all my time to the most important project of my life, getting a Reform government elected with Nigel as Prime Minister," Mr Yusuf added.
Please refresh the page for the latest version.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's raid on family businesses to cost his constituents 1,000 jobs
Labour's tax raid on family businesses is projected to cost hundreds of jobs in Sir Keir Starmer's constituency alone, new analysis shows. The revenue-raising scheme is also projected to hit the local economies of Labour constituencies harder than their Conservative, Reform and Liberal Democrat-voting counterparts. Analysis by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), which represents nearly 200,000 UK businesses, revealed that the changes to business property relief (BPR) announced in Rachel Reeves's October Budget will stifle growth in Labour seats across the country. The CBI claims that the average gross value added (GVA) losses in seats that elected Labour MPs at the last general election will be over £24 million, compared to £20 million in Conservative seats and £18.5 million in Reform constituencies. The projections span from the October 2024 budget to April 2030, after the next general election. Only seats held by the Green Party fared worse with an average GVA loss of around £40 million, suggesting that cities and urban centres will be worst hit by the raid. The CBI expects the economic hit to result in thousands of job losses in the most-exposed constituencies. Sir Keir's seat of Holborn and St Pancras will be the fourth-worst hit constituency in the country with 1,037 jobs expected to be lost, according to the analysis. Cabinet ministers to feel the pinch in their seats Red Wall seats are also set to suffer. The analysis shows that of £14.9 billion in nationwide GVA losses, some £4.6 billion (31 per cent) of that will hit constituencies that the Tories won in 2019 and Labour won back in 2024. These seats include the 31 Red Wall seats in the North and Midlands along with other key marginal constituencies which Labour will hope to win again at the next election if it wants to stay in power. Senior Cabinet ministers will also feel the pinch in their constituencies. The second-worst hit seat in the country, Manchester Central, is currently represented by Lucy Powell, the Leader of the House of Commons. The third-worst hit seat is Birmingham Ladywood, represented by Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary. Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland Secretary, represents the ninth-worst-hit seat of Leeds South. In the October Budget, the Chancellor slashed BPR in an attempt to raise money from family businesses. BPR was originally introduced by a Labour government in the 1970s. It allows company shareholders to leave business assets to loved ones without paying inheritance tax on them. But in a sweeping change that will take effect in April 2026, full business relief will only apply to the first £1 million of a business's assets upon a shareholder's death, with everything above this subject to 20 per cent tax.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Gory details of Elon Musk's 'rugby tackle' of Scott Bessent spill out as White House leaks escalate
New details surrounding a White House brawl between Elon Musk and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have spilled out into the open - with one insider saying the Tesla CEO rammed his shoulder into Bessent's ribcage 'like a rugby player.' The Daily Mail was the first to report on the heated confrontation between Bessent and Musk, who's since been iced out of Donald Trump 's inner circle after their public blow-up this week. Former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon revealed that there was more to the mid-April tussle, insisting that both men ended up landing blows. They lost their patience with one another following a tense meeting in the Oval Office in which Trump snubbed Musk and instead took Bessent's advice on whom to name as acting IRS Commissioner, Bannon said. When Bessent and Musk exited the Oval Office, they began hurling insults at one another in the hallway. But it was Bessent who struck Musk where it hurts. According to Bannon, Bessent dared to say that the billionaire's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was a failure, since Musk didn't root out the $1 trillion in wasteful and fraudulent federal spending he promised he would. 'Scott said, "You're a fraud. You're a total fraud,"' Bannon said. That's when Musk body-checked Bessent, who hit the world's richest man right back, according to Bannon. Bessent's comment about Musk failing to deliver DOGE cuts at the magnitude he promised got the Tesla CEO to strike Bessent, who hit back, according to Steve Bannon Multiple people stepped in to break up the fight as the two men were getting close to the office of then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. Musk was then escorted out of the West Wing. Bannon previously told the Daily Mail that Trump sided with Bessent '100 percent.' Still, Trump wasn't particularly happy that the fight took place, according to Bannon. 'President Trump heard about it and said, "This is too much,'' Bannon said. Details about the Bessent-Musk clash only build upon speculation that Trump has long been drifting away from his former 'first buddy,' who donated $288 million to his 2024 campaign. They also reinforce the fact that leakers inside the White House are laser-focused on Musk. Sources close to the billionaire blew the whistle on his poor relationship with Susie Wiles, Trump's no-nonsense chief of staff. He treated Wiles like a 'secretary,' a source told the Daily Mail in April, despite her proven track record of success leading Trump's winning 2024 campaign. And in early March, there was wide-scale reporting on an Oval Office blowup between Musk and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This was in the early days of the DOGE-inspired layoffs, and according to The New York Times, Musk berated Rubio for not firing anyone at the State Department. Rubio reportedly asked whether the 1,500 State Department officials who took early retirement buyouts counted as layoffs. Then he 'sarcastically' questioned if Musk wanted him to rehire them so he could fire them again, The Times reported. Most recently, Musk's alleged drug use was laid bare by insiders who spoke to The New York Times. Musk was reportedly taking ketamine so frequently that it was affecting his bladder function. The bombshell report also claimed he took ecstasy, psychedelic mushrooms and traveled with a daily pill box that contained about 20 different drugs, including Adderall. While all these disagreements played out behind the scenes, things between Musk and Trump seemed copacetic. In March, when Tesla stock was tanking and people began fire-bombing the electric vehicles all over the country, Trump brought Tesla to the South Lawn of the White House. One of the harshest barbs in the Trump-Musk feud came when Musk accused the president of being in the Epstein files As recently as May 30, Trump was praising Musk for his DOGE efforts during a press conference in the Oval Office, even presenting him a golden key to the White House. The era of good feelings would only last a few days more. On Tuesday afternoon, he posted on X about his unflinching hate for the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' Trump's landmark budget and tax cut bill. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,' Musk wrote. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' In response, Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'very disappointed' about Musk's unabashed criticism. On Thursday, Trump threatened to cut off federal loans and subsidies to Musk's companies, which have received some $38 billion in government money over the last two decades. Trump doubled down on this idea Friday, telling reporters aboard Air Force One: ''I would certainly think about it, but it has to be fair.' He also told reporters that he wished the billionaire 'well,' to which Musk replied in a post on X saying: 'Likewise.' Musk then responded to the clip of Trump talking about canceling his grants, saying: 'Fair enough.' Musk has sought to soften his tone, recently deleting his post on X saying that Trump was in the Epstein files. On Saturday, Trump did a phone interview with NBC's Kristen Welker and said he had no desire to mend his relationship with Musk. He also said he didn't plan to speak with Musk anytime soon. 'I'm too busy doing other things,' Trump said. 'I have no intention of speaking to him.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
KEMI BADENOCH: A simple way to deter migrants? Make them wait for ten years before they can claim any benefits
The issue of immigration is a simple one for the Conservative Party: we need to crack down on it in every form, both legal and illegal. For me, this is about basic fairness. Britain today seems to work more favourably for those who jump the queue, who break the rules, who get into our country illegally but then denigrate our customs and our culture. And those of us who work hard and do the right thing, hoping one day to leave a better life for our children, are left footing the bill. The billions of pounds of taxpayers' money we are spending to put asylum seekers up in hotels, for example, is well known. Less well known, however, is the fact that low-paid immigrants and refugees who stay here for five years qualify for 'indefinite leave to remain'. This allows them to claim the same benefits British citizens are entitled to, such as social housing and Universal Credit. They become automatically entitled to make such claims regardless of whether they've paid taxes or have simply lived off the state throughout those five years. To my mind, that is fundamentally unfair to all the hard-working Brits who have dutifully paid into the system – and I'm determined to stop it. But it's likely to come as no surprise that the Labour Government has no such interest. It voted against our Deportation Bill last month, which would have introduced a strict cap on the number of newcomers to these shores, as well as doubling the time it takes for immigrants to be able to claim benefits from five to ten years. The same ten-year rule would also apply to people seeking the privilege of British citizenship, up from the current five years. And, to make sure those who come here are serious about contributing to our society, rather than just ripping it off, the Bill would have barred anyone who'd claimed benefits from getting indefinite leave to remain. It would also have given the government the power to remove settled status from those who commit any crime – preventing them from claiming that precious British passport. All in all, that Bill was designed to protect our borders and uphold fairness in our benefits system. But thanks to Labour, it was shot down. To be honest, many – if not all – of the measures it contained would probably have ended up going the same way as the former government's abandoned scheme to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda. That became bogged down in our courts and frustrated by unnamed foreign judges interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mel Stride (pictured), when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC (pictured), and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights Other potentially transformative policies of ours have floundered in similar ways. Mel Stride, when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them. I call this lawfare – the use of litigation as a political weapon. Even if these legal activists aren't successful, the costs and delays they incur are crippling to democracy. It is turning us into a country afraid of its own shadow. This must change. I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC, and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do – get control of our borders, protect our welfare system and restore fairness – can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights. They will get to the bottom of how we got into this legal quagmire, and the challenges to getting us out. If their conclusions are that we cannot enact reasonable policies to put British citizens first when it comes to social housing and scarce public services, then I will know that we need to leave. The commission's findings will also help me make a workable plan to get us out of the ECHR, while taking into account the need to ensure essential human rights remain protected. The greatest danger we now face is allowing lawfare to make this country less fair, less safe and less democratic. But I'm determined that, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will protect our values, our democracy, our country – and, ultimately, our people.
