Reform UK Chairman Zia Yusuf Quits in Blow to Nigel Farage
Zia Yusuf resigned as chairman of Reform UK after 11 months in the job, delivering a blow to its leader, Nigel Farage, who has promised to build and professionalize the insurgent party in a quest for power at the next general election.
In a post on X, Yusuf said he no longer believed 'working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
We shall not continue as a free country if we continue to submit to radical Islamists
It shows in what strange times we live that it is the chairman of Reform, of all parties, who resigns over the question of banning the burka. Surely his party is the likeliest to favour a ban or – at least – to be able to contain internal disagreements on the subject. Probably Reform's chairman, Zia Yusuf, had other reasons to go. He is not the first person to find it challenging to work closely with Nigel Farage. In a spooky way, Reform tends to act as a mini-Maga, mirroring Trumpery in its highs and lows. Over there, Donald Trump and Elon Musk explode with a cosmic bang; over here, Farage and Yusuf then go off with a smaller pop. For this reason, I suspect that when Maga falters, as it eventually will, so will Reform. Nevertheless, Mr Yusuf is a Muslim. Partly for that reason, he was a recruitment coup for the supposedly 'Islamophobic' Reform. On Thursday, he said his party's newest MP, Sarah Pochin, had been 'dumb', at Prime Minister's Questions, to call for a burka ban; then he resigned. Let me take two other recent examples of where attitudes to Islam raise knotty problems. On Monday, Hamit Coskun, an atheist Turk, was found guilty of a 'religiously aggravated public order offence' and fined. He had burnt a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London. In an article in this week's Spectator, Mr Coskun says he was protesting about President Erdogan of Turkey changing his country from a firmly secular state to 'a base for radical Islamists while trying to create a sharia regime'. The magistrate, however, decided otherwise. Mr Coskun had been 'motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the [Muslim] religion', he said, and so he was a criminal. My other example comes from events outside Parliament on Wednesday. A noisy mob of anti-Israel demonstrators blocked, insulted and intimidated MPs and peers trying to enter. The protesters proudly announced that they were drawing a red line round the premises, as if they had that right. A disabled peer I know who travels by wheelchair, found it frightening to get through the crowd, though he determinedly persisted. He complained to a police officer, and got the airy reply, 'It's free speech, isn't it?' It indicates the sense of vulnerability such situations arouse that the peer asks me not to print his name. Another peer, Lord Moynihan, was surrounded near the Tube station entrance by black-clad youths who subjected him to an involuntary interview, which they filmed, including the question: 'Do you condemn the massacres of Gazans?' 'I do indeed condemn the terrible shootings by Hamas of their own people,' he bravely answered. It was noticeable – and has happened before – that when there are Gaza marches the police and the parliamentary authorities are lax about ensuring legislators can enter freely and protesters are kept at a distance. They seem not to acknowledge the vital difference between free speech and threatening behaviour. Obviously, the greatest passion behind the Gaza marches comes from Muslims (though the secular hard-Left is also involved). Have the police made a covert bargain with the march organisers? The fear of being called 'Islamophobic' seems to disable the police's judgment. They do not properly enforce public order or protect the right of MPs, peers or staff, to reach their place of work unimpeded. Nor do they protect the right of ordinary citizens to enter Parliament without fear. They act as if the 'right to protest' allows parliamentary democracy to be made subject to a picket line. Yesterday, with many other peers, I signed a letter to the Lord Speaker, organised by Lord Walney. One of our points was that, on top of normal public-order legislation, there are at least four other laws which specifically protect Parliament from such attacks. Why are these not enforced, we asked, and why do the parliamentary authorities not take a stronger line to insist that they should be? One of the attractions of Britain to immigrants is that we are a free country, treasuring free speech. In many cases, immigrants enhance our freedom. Now that immigration is on such a vast scale, however, we suffer because many immigrants do not come from freedom-loving cultures. To the extent that immigrants can be grouped by religion, by far our largest group are Muslims. For complex political, economic and cultural reasons, Islam is in global ferment. In that ferment, freedom is often scorned, except the freedom to advance interpretations of Islam, often the most extreme ones. Such Islamists have punitive, sometimes violent attitudes to promoting their version of their faith. At worst, this takes the form of terrorism. The words 'Allahu Akbar!' ('God is great!') have become the war-cry of an imminent explosion or attack. Even without actual violence, Islamism often involves naked anti-Semitism and unreasoning hatred of Israel. Militant Islam also tries to assert its power against the sort of freedoms which the rest of us (including, do not forget, many Muslims) cherish. Examples include forcing women and girls to cover their heads and even their faces, prohibitions on school swimming or singing, protests against being served by women in the public services and the banning of certain books and films. A leading Islamist demand is for a blasphemy law, although its supporters use other words to describe it. Most Muslims are highly sensitive to any perceived insult to their prophet, Mohammed, or to the Koran. Because they regard the Koran as 'the unmediated word of God', some take the view that disrespect to the physical object, the book of his word, is a direct attack on him, and therefore must be avenged. Belief in the sacredness of religious scriptures should be respected by non-believers, but it must not be defended by law, no matter how much transgressions may offend Muslims. It is unpleasant and foolish to burn the Koran in public, just as it was – which often happened in Britain until quite recently – to burn effigies of the Pope. But the only conceivable justification for banning would be in special incidents – burning a Koran in front of worshippers entering a mosque, for example – which would amount to an incitement to violence. The offence here should not be because the act was 'religiously aggravated'. A modern country should not adjudicate between the sincerity, truth or competing ardour of different religious claims. All it can judge is that some things in some places breach civil peace. In all the cases cited above, you can see politicians and public authorities tiptoeing round the subject. Surefootedness is certainly better than clodhopping where religion is concerned. But there is a growing, justified fear that we shall not continue as a free country if we defer to the angriest Muslim voices. Two concepts need to be faced down. The first is the idea of 'Islamophobia', to which this Government wants to give legal shape. The word 'phobia' suggests psychological abnormality, yet surely people are entitled to be frightened of any religion, especially of Christianity and Islam, which aims for conversion and claims universal truth. Such fears may be misplaced, but they are not criminal. The other concept embedded in public policy, thanks to the Equality Act, is that of 'protected characteristics' – one's religion, sex, sexuality, age, disability, race etc. These are intended to defend people against persecution, but in practice they drive us into warring categories. The only protected characteristic anyone should need is to be a British citizen. That unites. Everything else divides. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Reform declares war on all gold-plated public sector pensions
A Reform UK government would radically overhaul gold-plated public sector pensions to stop them bankrupting Britain. Richard Tice told The Telegraph he would put everything on the table and end the taxpayer 'rip off' if his party won the next general election. Reform's deputy leader said the party would consider moving all public sector employees out of their 'Rolls-Royce' pension plans and into the defined contribution schemes almost all private sector workers have. Britain currently hands £54bn a year to public sector retirees and another £35bn in pension contributions to current state workers, with both groups entitled to guaranteed, inflation-linked payments for life. It comes after Reform pledged to axe defined benefit council pensions, which a recent Telegraph investigation revealed now costs some local authorities more than half of what they raise in council tax. Britain currently has more than three million public sector pensioners, the vast majority of whom are retired NHS workers, teachers, civil servants and members of the armed forces. Their schemes are all unfunded, meaning the contributions that come in from employers and employees are immediately used to pay current retirees, rather than being prudently invested to pay future pensions. However, contributions have fallen short of the amounts paid out, with taxpayers funding a £49bn shortfall over the past decade alone. Historically, they also haven't covered the cost of new pension rights built up by current workers. John Ralfe, a pensions consultant, calculated that the shortfall between contributions and future pensions was £208bn between 2013-23 – and it will be met by current and future taxpayers. The system, which would be illegal in the private sector, has built up pension liabilities running into the trillions. Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Tice said action was needed where successive governments had failed. He said: 'We've got to have these conversations over the next few years and wake people up as to why we're in such a financial mess. Public sector pay and benefits have soared and yet productivity has collapsed, and it's a catastrophe. 'I want to be honest with the country. I want to say, 'if we don't sort this out, this will be a major factor in the country going bankrupt'. It's that serious.' He also confirmed that Reform would consider moving every public sector worker into the type of defined contribution schemes that almost all private sector workers are members of. He added: 'Everything has got to be on the table. The old rule was that public pay was less than the private sector because they had a more generous pension scheme, but successive governments have lifted pay in the public sector and therefore the old deal is no longer valid. 'Bluntly, there's been a failure to be honest about this. The public sector has pulled the wool over the eyes of the taxpayer. We're going to talk about it for the next four years: that taxpayers are being ripped off and it can't go on.' Last week, Mr Tice said that Reform-controlled councils would stop offering the generous pension scheme to new employees and reduce pay rises for existing workers to balance out the cost of funding their retirements. The Local Government Pension Scheme, the largest funded scheme in the UK, already spends £15bn a year on paying pensions across Britain. A recent Telegraph investigation uncovered five local authorities that stuff more than half of their council tax into staff pension pots. Another 19 fork out more than a third, while 60 spend more than a fifth on funding the generous schemes. It came after a series of Telegraph revelations about the cost of public sector pensions. Last year, we calculated that Britain's current bill was £4.9 trillion, with each household on the hook for £173,000. In October, we reported that another £20bn would be added to taxpayer-funded pension payouts after they rose another 1.7pc following September's inflation figure. Last month, we showed how the latest public sector pay rise would cost another £1bn in pension contributions alone. We also revealed how taxpayers have been handed extra pension bills of £45bn for Royal Mail, £1.7bn for the Environment Agency and more than £300m for retired train drivers. Switching public sector workers to defined contribution pensions could send the taxpayer's annual bill plummeting to around £4.5bn, saving almost £28bn a year, calculations have shown. However, Barry McKay, of pensions firm Barnett Waddingham, warned it would be difficult to make the change. He said: 'If you move to defined contribution, those contributions paid by existing workers would go into a pot somewhere to be invested and grow for the benefit of each worker, but in doing so there would be no money coming in to pay existing pensions. 'The Treasury would have to find a huge amount of money to pay the existing pensioners from somewhere else, because they don't have the contribution income any more. That leaves a massive hole in the Treasury accounts.' He added: 'There is a problem that we're effectively stuck with defined benefit.' Neil Record, a pensions expert and former Bank of England economist, said: 'The only practical solution to public sector pensions' increasingly intolerable burden on taxpayers is for the Government to offer a cash alternative, as an option, to all public sector employees. 'My guess is that in return for an approximately 30pc pay rise, most public sector employees would choose to give up accruing new pension rights as long as their existing rights were fully honoured.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Flats dubbed 'open prison' to be redeveloped
Councillors have unanimously backed their authority buying a 14-storey building that was controversially converted from offices into temporary accommodation. Conservative leader of Harlow Council in Essex, Dan Swords, said Terminus House had been "a massive postcard image of the decline of Harlow" and said the authority would redevelop the town centre site. Opposition leader, Labour's James Griggs, said he supported the plans, but his primary concern was what would happen to the 150 to 200 people living there. The council said it would take ownership once the current owner has re-housed the residents. The owner, Caridon, said the building had helped hundreds of people avoid homelessness. Glen Lane, 65, has lived in the tower block in one room with an en-suite since 2018. He described conditions as "the worst place I have ever lived in", saying it "feels like an open prison, probably worse than an open prison". Mr Lane was homeless and said he struggled to get on the local council housing list. "It's depressing. It's got a reputation this property. It's embarrassing when I put my address down," he said. "I feel quite ashamed about it as I haven't always lived like this. I used to have my own property and job but I lost all that." His room is only a few square metres in size. At the end of his double bed, the kitchen begins. For the last eight months he said the property had been plagued with insects. He had used insect powder but they were still "climbing on me at night when I'm sleeping". Crime rose by 20% in the area around Terminus House after it was turned into accommodation in 2018, according to police figures. A BBC East and Panorama documentary highlighted the cramped conditions. In 2021, the government imposed a minimum size of 37 sq m (398 sq ft) on new office to flat conversions. Harlow Council has become the largest landowner in the town centre, buying up buildings to regenerate them into new housing, leisure and retail space. The authority's latest decision to buy Terminus House has brought uncertainty about the building's future. Conservative leader Dan Swords said plans were being finalised on whether it would be demolished or redeveloped. However, he said in any scenario it would look "completely different from that which it does now". "The existing tenants, which have largely nearly all come through temporary accommodation from London boroughs, will be housed outside of Harlow," he said. Labour's James Griggs argued that "sending them back somewhere else seems completely wrong". He told the BBC that some people had been living there for years. "There are families who now consider themselves Harlow families. They have children in Harlow schools, the parents are working in the town." The redeveloped site would likely include housing. The local authority has not disclosed how much it was paying for it. Emma Batrick, a charity organiser who supports local families, said many people living in Terminus House would be "reeling at the news that their homes will be going". "There is a real concern about the human element of this," she said. Caridon, the company that owns Terminus House, said in a statement the building met "a pressing need for temporary accommodation at a time of limited options". "The building has since supported hundreds of individuals and families in avoiding homelessness and finding stability during difficult periods," it said. Speaking at his flat, Mr Lane welcomed Harlow Council's plans. "I'm glad they are doing it. It definitely needs upgrading," he said. But where he and others will end up living is not currently known. Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. MP's concern over homes in converted office blocks 'He's banging his head because there is no room' 'I don't want my kids thinking this is normal' Harlow Council
