Reform splits over burka ban
Reform UK's newest MP calling for a ban on the burka was 'dumb', the party's chairman has said.
In a sign of a party split on the policy, Zia Yusuf said he had 'no idea' that Sarah Pochin's first question at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday would be demanding a burka ban.
Mr Yusuf wrote on X: 'I do think it's dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do.'
He added: 'Nothing to do with me. Had no idea about the question nor that it wasn't policy. Busy with other stuff.'
Mrs Pochin, who was elected last month as the Reform MP for Runcorn and Helsby, stood to ask Sir Keir Starmer her first question at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.
The former Tory councillor said: 'Given the Prime Minister's desire to strengthen strategic alignment with our European neighbours, will he, in the interests of public safety, follow the lead of France, Denmark, Belgium and others and ban the burka?'
The question prompted a rippling of audible disquiet among some fellow MPs.
Sir Keir responded: 'Can I welcome her to her place [in the House of Commons]? But I am not going to follow her down that line.
'Now she is here, and safely in her place, perhaps she could tell her new party leader [Nigel Farage] that his latest plan to bet £80 billion of unfunded tax cuts, [with] no idea how he is going to pay for it, is Liz Truss all over again.
'Although considering I think she was a Conservative member when Liz Truss was leader she probably won't.'
France banned wearing the burka and any other full-face veils in public places in 2010. Denmark passed a similar ban in 2018.
Mrs Pochin, a former Tory councillor, later said that the question was something that 'a number of people had raised' with her.
'Face coverings in public don't make sense'
Despite the party confirming that it was not policy, Lee Anderson, the Reform party whip, said on social media: 'Ban the burka? Yes we should.
'No one should be allowed to hide their identity in public.'
Nigel Farage, the Reform leader, later told GB News that he believed that 'face coverings in public don't make sense and I think we deserve a debate about that, of which I see the burka being part.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
33 minutes ago
- The Sun
Primark is selling the perfect summer holiday beach bag- it's waterproof & shoppers can't get enough of the sparkles
PRIMARK has the perfect beach bag for your summer holidays, and shoppers can't get enough of the sparkles. Now that summer is finally upon us, and with temperatures set to ramp up again next week, many of us are likely making plans for trips aboard. 3 3 3 And what better way to get yourself excited for summer than treating yourself to a new accessory. Primark is one of the best-loved brands on the high street, and is constantly wowing us with its stylish but affordable fashion. From cute dresses to on-trend work attire, the supermarket fast-fashion range always hits the mark, and its new summer collection is no exception. Posting to their TikTok account, Primark recently shared a clip of a brand its new jelly tote bag being carried by a fashion fan on a pebble beach. "Packed up and beach ready", Primark said. The stylish silver bag is large enough to fit in all your summer essentials, such as a towel and sun cream. It's made from a waterproof material, so it will keep your belongings dry, and its super lightweight. Plus, the bag is just £10, so is perfect for penny pinchers. Primark said: "Add a playful twist to your everyday look with this jelly tote bag. "Made from a flexible, wipe-clean material, it's lightweight yet roomy enough to carry your essentials with ease. I tried Primark's designer 'Farm Rio range' on a size 16 body - I loved their colourful coords for summer "The open top makes grabbing your things quick and fuss-free, while the sturdy twin handles are designed for easy carrying. "Whether you're heading to the beach, the shops or just out and about, this bag brings a hint of fun to your outfit." The lightweight bag is available in store, or via click and collect on the Primark website. And it's already proving popular with fashion fans. Why Primark is great for looking expensive on a budget By Clemmie Feildsend, Fabulous Fashion Editor AS someone who's no stranger to grabbing a last-minute outfit from Primark for a night out, it's about time that celebrities started catching on too. For as long as I've been heading out, Primark has been my go-to for those 'I have nothing to wear' moments, rushing in at the last minute to find something perfect. And I'm definitely not alone - on any Friday or Saturday night, you'll find plenty of shoppers doing the same thing, right before closing time. But no matter what, Primark always delivers. Now, Rita Ora is leading the charge, showing that you can snag a designer-worthy look without spending a fortune at high-end stores. While Rita's not rushing in last minute for a red carpet outfit, she's proving you can achieve the same high-impact style for much less. Looking stunning in her tailored suit alongside her mum Vera, Rita fit right in among the other A-listers dripping in Prada, Dior, and Victoria Beckham - if anything, she looked even better than some of the guests at The Fashion Awards. With Myleene Klass and Roxy Horner already jumping on the Primark bandwagon, I'm sure more stars will be following suit soon enough. Commenting under the TikTok video, one person beamed: "The sparkles!" Another said: "Love!" Shoppers have also been raving about Primark's new statement beaded bags. Not only are there two colourful patterns to choose from, but it's super stylish and will make the perfect holiday accessory. Not only are there two colourful patterns to choose from, but it's super stylish and will make the perfect holiday accessory. went viral in a leopard and cherry print last year, is a dupe for an £88 version in Anthropologie and £285 one in Staud.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Can we still be Britain without the British? We'd rather you didn't ask
I couldn't care less about the burka debate. Not a tinker's. Why? Because it's a concession of defeat, a belated response by panicked politicians to a change that's already happened and that they largely encouraged. Last week, a meteor hit Britain with the publication of a demographic study by the queerly named Centre of Heterodox Social Science. By 2063, say the sociable hets, white Britons will be a minority; come the new century, almost one in five citizens will be Muslim. This forces us to consider a very politically incorrect question: will Britain still be Britain if it's no longer majority white British? The official answer is 'absolutely, yes'. Elite liberals believe nations are defined by values, and thus anyone, from anywhere in the world, can become British if they conform to them. It helps that these values are universal. Fairness, tolerance, kindness... this is a portable identity that is uncontroversial, because it demands nothing except to pay one's taxes and avoid murder. Keir Starmer warns that we are becoming an 'island of strangers', while promoting a vision of citizenship that is entirely passive. It's also based on a misreading of human nature. Liberals assume that values shape culture, such that we could pass a law – ban the burka, ban Islamophobia – and we'd become good neighbours overnight. But it's the other way around. Culture shapes values, and culture is the product of non-abstract, substantial qualities, such as climate, geography, religion, language and ethnicity. We can shorthand it as 'history'. Thus: we are democratic in Britain not because a committee decided it over one wild weekend, but following nearly a thousand years of revolution and reaction, baked into memory and expressed as temperament. Such a society is light-touch and self-governing, at least in theory, because we've been marinating in its ethics and customs since birth. The English, Welsh, Scots etc do exist as cultures – not superior to others, nor unaffected by migration, but really real – and if they undergo a profound change in composition, this is bound to change the nature of Britishness, too. Isn't that obvious? It's regarded as axiomatic elsewhere. We rush to recognise and cultivate the historical identity of First Nations people, just as we step back nervously from a Holy Land conflict shaped by competing ethnic claims over biblical territory. And even if you regard ethnic conflict as sinful, as I do, or based upon a category error, as academics insist, we have to accept that identity matters to a lot of people. In which case, I struggle to think of a society in history that has faced the scale of change happening to us without descending into violence or authoritarianism. Today, the liberal understanding of nationhood is already in retreat. Remigration is being trialled in the United States. Donald Trump is reducing inflows by banning travel from named countries, cutting asylum and militarising his border. He's also increasing outflows by expelling as many people as he can on any pretext he can find. For instance, when an Egyptian asylum-seeker assaulted protesters in Colorado, the administration not only arrested the attacker but detained and is seeking to deport his entire family – a 'sins of the father' policy that judges are resisting. Elsewhere, the BBC's Simon Reeve has caused a stir by highlighting the integrationist policies of Denmark, a country that offers people cash to go home and dismantles ghettos. That this is done by social democrats comes as no surprise. Scandinavia is historically conformist; a welfare state requires high levels of solidarity to function. Evidence of my 'history-shapes-identity' theory is offered by how countries respond to the immigration challenge in light of their own traditions. Here, when a Reform UK MP asked the PM for his views on the burka, the PM had no answer and his MPs sounded as shocked as a maiden aunt offered cocaine. Why doesn't Labour want to have this debate? A cynic will say: it offends their core constituency. A Tory will claim: they don't really care about immigration. And yet Labour's immigration White Paper looks tough, and it has already increased deportations compared with the last government. Historically, it was Labour that restricted Commonwealth immigration in the 1960s, and Boris Johnson, of Brexit fame, who threw the borders open. Boris, who liked to play both sides of the immigration game, infamously compared the burka to a letter box – yet did not wish to ban it. Do we not say 'an Englishman's home is his castle'? By extension, they are free to wear whatever they want in the street. The problem, reply nationalists, is that by clinging to a liberal vision, we open the door to illiberal attitudes that might, by strength of conviction, overwhelm us. If the culture goes, our old values will follow. We are not, however, as tolerant as many assume. It has been reported that Prevent now regards 'cultural nationalism' – the fear that society 'is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration' – as a 'sub-category of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideologies', and thus worthy of referral to the authorities. GB News is up in arms – admittedly a permanent condition – but I've yet to hear a guest point out that white Christians are merely experiencing what the security services have done to Muslim Britons since 9/11: slander and harassment. Between 2016 and 2019, over 2,000 children under the age of nine were referred to Prevent, including a four-year-old Muslim boy who talked about a violent computer game at an after-school club. Right and Left are chasing a mirage of British liberalism that, in an age when you can get 31 months for a social-media post, no longer reflects reality. Immigration is ultimately a numbers game. A democratic society can get along fine with any minority, so long as it remains small in number. But when a government fails to police its borders, and thus loses control over numbers, it will feel obliged to police society to maintain harmony: monitoring, deporting, rewriting history, and indoctrinating us in a strange new variant on national character, a parody of kindness best described as 'sinister twee'. If you want a vision of the future, it is a Dawn French-shaped woman, with a midlife-crisis fringe, talking to you about diversity and inclusion as if you were a baby. Then, when you raise an objection, ending the discussion with a disturbingly final 'NO'.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy
Labour came to power fatuously parroting the word 'change' and yet has shown itself to be the same old tax and spending party it has always been. What it meant was a change of party in office not a change of direction. Not only have taxes gone up but so-called protected spending is set to rise despite record debt levels. Yet if ever a public policy has been tested to destruction surely it is the notion that the NHS will improve if only more money is thrown at it. Even Sir Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, are on record as saying that higher health spending is not the answer to the endemic flaws in the health service and yet another £30 billion is to be announced for the next three years on top of the £22 billion handed over after last year's general election, much of which went on pay and showed nothing in the way of productivity improvement. No mainstream politician is prepared to acknowledge that the problem with the NHS is the fact it is a nationalised industry with all the inherent inefficiencies associated with such. Most other advanced economies in Europe and elsewhere have social insurance systems which work better. But the insistence in Britain of cleaving to the 1948 'founding principle' that treatment should be free at the point of delivery has become a quasi-religious doctrine that few dare challenge. Only Nigel Farage has questioned the wisdom of continuing with a system that patently fails to achieve what others manage to do but has been noticeably quiet on the subject recently because Labour will exploit it mercilessly to see off the Reform threat. Telling people that they will have to pay for something they have always had for free is even more difficult when political parties are prepared to see the health system get worse rather than reform it. The same is true of welfare. Taking benefits from people, even when they are payments introduced just a few years ago like the winter fuel allowance, is hard if the reasons are not explained and the issue is 'weaponised' by opponents. Yet unless the welfare budget is brought under control it will bankrupt the country. If change is to mean anything then we need politicians finally to understand the extent of the country's difficulties and make decisions accordingly. Will we see that from the Chancellor on Wednesday?
