How popular is Reform UK at the moment - and who's voting for it?
A civil war has erupted in Reform UK.
Zia Yusuf, its chairman, quit the party on Thursday, saying working to get it elected was no longer 'a good use of my time'.
It followed a row in which he criticised a "dumb" question from new MP Sarah Pochin to Sir Keir Starmer in Parliament on Wednesday about a ban on burkas. Reform figures - including leader Nigel Farage - had backed Pochin.
The infighting is an unwelcome setback for the party, which is riding high in polling among the public and achieved third place in Thursday's Scottish by-election, finishing within 1,500 votes of the winning Labour candidate.
In the latest YouGov voting intention tracker, based on surveys from 1 and 2 June, Reform topped the polls on 28%. This compares to Labour on 22%, the Tories on 18% and Lib Dems on 16%.
The tracker's more detailed results indicate Reform is most popular among over-50s with some 40% of Britons between 50 and 64 choosing the party in the latest survey. This compares to just 18% favouring Labour and the Tories. Meanwhile, 34% of over-65s are backing Farage's party, compared to 30% who are currently supporting the Tories.
In terms of gender, Reform is also the most popular party among British males (31%) and females (25%).
In England, it is also leading in the north (32%), Midlands (30%) and south (28%). In London, it is only the fourth most popular party (15%).
The party's apparent increasing support translated into MPs during last year's general election, which saw it win five seats: Ashfield, Boston and Skegness, Clacton, Great Yarmouth (though its winning candidate Rupert Lowe is no longer a Reform MP) and South Basildon and East Thurrock. It came in second place in a further 98 constituencies.
The party's electoral momentum continued at a local level last month. As well as winning the Runcorn and Helsby parliamentary by-election (which sent Sarah Pochin to the House of Commons), Reform won two mayoralties (Greater Lincolnshire and Hull and East Yorkshire) and control of 10 councils.
In the Scottish Parliament by-election for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse on Thursday, Reform came "from nowhere" to finish third - and within 1,500 of first.
After not putting a candidate forward in 2021, Reform's Ross Lambie won 7,088 votes, compared to the SNP's 7,957 and Labour's 8,559.
In 2021, Reform UK finished a lowly 13th, with just 58 votes. Deputy leader Richard Tice said: "We've come from nowhere to being in a three-way marginal, and we're within 750 votes of winning that by-election and just a few hundred votes of defeating the SNP, so it's an incredible result.'
But if the popularity of Reform UK is gathering momentum, internally, the party has been hit by a series of high-profile internal problems.
Formerly a Tory member, Yusuf came to prominence in June last year as a major Reform donor - giving £200,000 to the party - ahead of the general election
A businessman who co-founded a luxury concierge service app called Velocity Black, which he reportedly sold for £233m in 2023, he was labelled a "star of the show" by Farage.
And after Reform won its first Commons seats in the election, Yusuf was appointed chairman with a brief of "professionalising the party, building national infrastructure and continuing to grow membership".
He was at the heart of another Reform "civil war" in March when the party stripped MP Rupert Lowe of the whip and reported him to the police, accusing him of making 'threats of physical violence' towards Yusuf. The Crown Prosecution Service said last month no criminal charges would be brought against Lowe, who then accused his ex-colleagues of a 'sinister' attempt to use the police to silence him.
Yusuf also appeared to have an increasingly prominent role representing Reform in the media. After last month's local elections, it was him - not any of Reform's MPs - who spoke for the party on the BBC's flagship Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg politics programme.
But just one month later, he was out following his clash with senior figures in the party. On Wednesday, Pochin asked Starmer during Prime Minister's Questions whether he would support a ban on burkas.
A day later, Yusuf said on social media it had been 'dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do'.
Shortly after that, he announced he was quitting as Reform's chairman, saying that working to get the party elected was no longer 'a good use of my time'.
Party leader Farage said he had only 10 minutes' notice Yusuf was going to resign, adding he was 'genuinely sorry' he was departing.
Reform has set out a number of policies in recent months.
The party has said it would reinstate the winter fuel allowance and scrap the two-child benefit cap in what is a clear attempt to target Labour supporters angry at the party's welfare cuts. More controversially, Reform has vowed to make "big savings" by scrapping the UK's net zero, asylum hotel and DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies.
Farage has also said it would lift the income tax threshold to £20,000: something the Institute for Fiscal Studies questioned, saying it would cost up to £80bn. Starmer seized on this, saying Farage's "fantasy" economics would lead to a Liz Truss-style economic meltdown.
Quite how this translates into how the public continues to view the party remains to be seen. But with the next general election still four years away, there are plenty more twists and turns to come for Farage & Co.
The policies Reform UK and Nigel Farage have announced this year (Yahoo News UK)
The tightrope Farage is walking on race – and why he can only lose (The Telegraph)
Reform-led councils in 'paralysis' as dozens of meetings cancelled in first weeks (The Independent)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes 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
14 minutes 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.
Bloomberg
30 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Dutch Far-Right Leader's Bid for More Power Risks Flopping
Geert Wilders is betting that triggering the collapse of an unloved Dutch government will position him to emerge stronger and become the nation's dominant political figure, but signs are emerging that the far-right leader's gambit could backfire. By alienating potential coalition partners and testing the patience of weary voters, Wilders is losing support compared to the last election and his Freedom Party's lead over the GreenLeft–Labour alliance has narrowed.
