Zia Yusuf issues humiliating apology for row over Reform MP's 'dumb' burka ban question that saw him quit Farage party - and backs outlawing head coverings
Former Reform UK chairman Zia Yusuf made a humiliating on-air apology for his role in a public row over banning burkas today that resulted in him temporarily quitting the party.
Mr Yusuf used a BBC interview to say he regretted a tweet in which he said Sarah Pochin had asked a 'dumb' question at Prime Minister's Questions last Wednesday.
He insisted his tweet 'did not criticise her as dumb' directly, and he had in fact only been saying her question was dumb.
And the son of Sri Lankan Muslim immigrants said that if he was an MP he 'would be in favour of banning face coverings in public', even though he is generally 'queasy about banning things'.
Mr Yusuf, a former City banker, quit as chairman 24 hours after his criticism of Ms Pochin later, only to abruptly U-turn and return to the party ranks 48 hours later on Saturday, albeit in a different, lesser role leading its council cost-cutting unit.
Speaking to Radio 4's Today programme he reiterated that 'exhaustion led to a poor decision' to quit and that Ms Pochin was 'a tremendous MP (and) a phenomenal asset to the party and the House of Commons.'
Announcing his resignation on Thursday afternoon, Mr Yusuf said: 'I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office.'
Asked about the burka ban row he said at the time he 'certainly did not resign because I have any strong views about the burka itself' but felt blindsided by the question.
Announcing his resignation on Thursday afternoon, Mr Yusuf said: 'I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office.'
Mr Yusuf told Today: 'If I was an MP I would think about it very deeply and I probably would be in favour of banning face coverings in public writ large, not just the burka – you know I have seen (masked) Antifa thugs threaten Nigel, threaten our employees and attack one of his security detail and knock a tooth out.
'It's a very threatening thing and we live in dangerous times.'
'The thing that frustrated me at the time was that I did think at that moment that the best thing to do was to ask a question about something that would be policy.
'I'm very queasy and uneasy about banning things that would be, for example, unconstitutional in the United States, as I think it would be, but we have a very particular situation here in the UK, I would think about it very deeply but I probably would be in favour of a ban.'
The ex-chairman will also take part in policymaking, fundraising and media appearances in his role leading the so-called 'UK Doge', based on the US Department of Government Efficiency formerly led by tech billionaire Elon Musk.
He will be working alongside another millionaire, the Brexit backer Arron Banks, in councils run by Reform to route out supposed waste.
Mr Banks, who stood as a Reform candidate in the local elections in May, said yesterday that Mr Yusuf's return was 'an inspirational move' that played to the strengths of someone who was 'a brilliant communicator with the media and a genius on tech'.
However, on Friday night, after Mr Yusuf resigned, he was less complimentary, tweeting: 'Zia worked very hard but struggled with relationships and people. The corks will be popping in party HQ this evening.. Reform will power on …'
Party leader Nigel Farage, speaking to the Sunday Times newspaper alongside Mr Yusuf, said the former chairman will return and effectively be doing 'four jobs', though his title has not yet been decided.
Yesterday it was put to deputy leader Richard Tice that that it does not look very professional for Reform's chairman to be in, out, then back in again.
He told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme: 'Zia Yusuf has done a brilliant job in growing the party, creating huge infrastructure, over 400 branches, but it's a massive job and as we were growing incredibly fast, essentially that job was too much for one person, so we're reorganising, and I'm delighted that Zia is staying with the party, and he's going to be focusing on our Doge unit.
'There is so much waste you've been talking about, how does the Government find more money?
'Well, the best thing is to stop wasting money. I'm afraid, what we're discovering as we look under the bonnet of the 10 councils that we are now in control of, is there's waste everywhere, and it's got to stop.
'That's what Zia is going to focus on, as well as fundraising. So it's great news he's with us.'
Meanwhile, shadow home secretary Chris Philp called Reform UK a 'protest party' and said it is offering 'populist policies that are essentially Liz Truss on steroids'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
What the winter fuel payment changes mean for you
Will you miss out on winter fuel payment because your income is just above £35,000? Get in touch: money@ Rachel Reeves has U-turned on her controversial winter fuel payment plan, which saw the money removed from all but the poorest pensioners. The Chancellor had restricted the previously universal payments to just those receiving pension credit, removing the money from an estimated 10 million pensioners. From this winter, those over state pension age with an annual income of less than £35,000 will be able to benefit from the payment – the Treasury says this will include more than three quarters of pensioners in England and Wales. Those under the age of 80 can expect £200 per household, while those over the age of 80 can get an extra £100. However, those earning more than £35,000 will pay back the money to HM Revenue and Customs through their tax bills. Mrs Reeves said: 'Targeting winter fuel payments was a tough decision, but the right decision because of the inheritance we had been left by the previous government. It is also right that we continue to means-test this payment so that it is targeted and fair, rather than restoring eligibility to everyone including the wealthiest. 'But we have now acted to expand the eligibility of the winter fuel payment so no pensioner on a lower income will miss out. This will mean over three quarters of pensioners receiving the payment in England and Wales later this winter.' The Government estimates that the new iteration will still save £450m a year, compared to restoring the payment to every pensioner, since there are an estimated two million pensioners with incomes above £35,000. The clawback mechanism is similar to the high income child benefit charge, which sees families on more than £60,000 hand back some, or all, of their child benefit payments. Here, Telegraph Money explains what the new winter fuel payment rules mean for you. What has changed? Rachel Reeves announced last summer that she was removing the £200 winter fuel payment from pensioners who were not in receipt of pension credit, as she looked to fill holes in the public purse. But this proved deeply controversial, as millions of pensioners missed out, with many struggling to cover high energy prices. The change also drove a huge surge in applications for the pension credit, with 285,600 pensioners applying between July last year and the end of May, an increase of 51pc. This saw delays of as long as 87 days for those waiting to be approved for the benefit. Campaign groups said that restricting eligibility to those receiving pension credit made some of the very poorest pensioners worse off, as many were just above the threshold for the benefit. The Government has now changed its mind. According to the latest announcement, this winter will see all pensioners over state pension age paid the £200 or £300 – but those who are not eligible to keep it will pay it back to HMRC. The annual income threshold has been set at £35,000. This means that nine million pensioners will receive the payment this year, compared to approximately 1.5 million last year. It is not clear whether the threshold will be increased annually with inflation, or linked to increases in the so-called 'triple lock', which sees the state pension increased by one of three measures each year. How to claim? Pensioners will not need to actively claim the payment, as it will be made automatically – but it will be possible to opt out. There will be no need to register with HMRC to receive the payment. Pensioners will be eligible if they have reached state pension age – currently 66 – by the qualifying week, which this year will be September 15 to September 21. How will it be paid back if I earn more than £35,000? If you earn more than £35,000, the payment will be clawed back through your tax bills. The Government says this will be done through the PAYE system, or via self-assessment. Sir Steve Webb said that for those with large company pensions, which are taxed through PAYE, this should be relatively easy for the Government to administer. If you earn over the threshold, the entire payment will be claimed back through your tax bills, with no taper. Is winter fuel allowance per person or household? Confusingly, the winter fuel payment is paid per household, but the earnings clawback is calculated individually. This means that a household will receive no more than £300 (for those over the age of 80), but each person's income is used to determine whether their half of the payment is removed via tax. I live alone. What happens if I earn just over £35,000? While someone who lives alone will be paid the full £200, or £300 if they're over 80, having an income of over £35,000 would mean the full winter fuel payment is taken back via tax. For those earning just over the threshold of £35,000, it might be worth considering reducing what you're taking from a pension pot. Alice Haine, of Bestinvest, said: 'Ultimately, for pensioners earning just above the £35,000 threshold, the latest news will be disappointing. Some may even choose to reduce their income from private pensions if it means they can just skim under the threshold to receive the payment.' What happens if I earn more than £35,000 but my spouse doesn't? If one pensioner in a household earns more than the threshold and the other doesn't, then £100 will be clawed back by HMRC from the higher earner. This is because the allowance is paid on a household level, so if there are two pensioners living in the same home, then it is split equally between them. This means that households where one pensioner earns £100,000 and the other earns £34,000, would receive £100 in winter fuel payment. The other £100 would be paid back through the tax system. Can I get the winter fuel payment if I am a millionaire? You could technically be a millionaire and keep the winter fuel payment if your income is less than £35,000. Even if a pensioner is asset rich, with a large home or pension pot, if their annual income for tax purposes is below the threshold, they will still be permitted to keep the payment. Sarah Coles, of Hargreaves Lansdown, said: 'The balance of property assets and pension income for older people can leave them wealthy on paper, and yet seriously strapped for cash on a daily basis. In the short term, things like the winter fuel payment can help.' Some millionaires don't believe they should receive the payments at all. Digby Harper, 79, a retired manufacturing company owner, said that he would not have the winter fuel payment restored, having sold his business for several million pounds when he retired. He said: 'As far as I am concerned, it's perfectly ok. I can't see why they gave me that money in the first place. I just don't need it. 'My wife used to describe it as her 'wine allowance'. I think it's a trivial issue. It's a big political issue but it's a nonsense.' How much do I get if I am over 80? Those over the age of 80 receive an additional £100 in winter fuel payment. For single pensioners, or households where both people are over 80, this would mean a payment of £300. In households with one pensioner under the age of 80 and one over, payments will be made of £100 and £150 respectively, sources at the DWP confirmed. This means that a total of £250 will be paid to mixed-age households. If either pensioner is over the income threshold, then their share would be clawed back. If both pensioners earn over the threshold, all £250 would be clawed back. Can I opt out? Pensioners will be able to opt out of receiving the payment at all, if they so choose. For those earning more than £35,000, this means that no additional money will be claimed by HMRC. More details about how pensioners can opt out will be announced by the Government at a later date. This is similar to how parents can opt out of receiving child benefit payments, if they earn over the threshold and would have to repay it. Opting out of child benefit can be done using an online form on the Government website, or by phone or post. As of August last year, more than 712,000 families had opted out of receiving child benefit payments.
The Sun
21 minutes ago
- The Sun
Reeves' toxic snatching of Winter Fuel cash from millions of pensioners will haunt Labour for years to come
AS POLITICAL u-turns go, Rachel Reeves' retreat on winter fuel payments will surely go down as one of the biggest - and messiest - in history. Her first act as Chancellor to snatch the cold weather cash from 10million pensioners has today been spectacularly dumped. 1 Nine million OAPs will now get the benefit, meaning all but the richest will claw back the £200-£300 sum. With a price tag of £1.25billion, this whole palaver has only saved the Treasury £450million. It's chicken feed in the grand scheme of things, and a tenth of the annual migrant hotel bill. But the political cost has been devastating. Labour insiders trace their spanking at last month's local elections back to Ms Reeves' toxic decision in the weeks after the election. That the winter fuel policy was still coming up on doorsteps 10 months later was a sign it was destined for the shredder. Yet rather than ripping off the plaster cleanly, the past few weeks have seen an agonising u-turn mired in chaos and confusion. And the Government is still not clear how the softening will be paid for, sparking inevitable fears of more tax rises. Speculation continues to swirl around Ms Reeves' own political fate and whether she is in line for the chop. We know Sir Keir Starmer can be ruthless in wielding the knife, but it is unclear this nuclear option would actually help. Just ask Liz Truss about the perils of a PM sacking a Chancellor with whom they are ideologically joined at the hip. Four years is a long time until the next general election, and Sir Keir and Ms Reeves will be hoping voters would have since moved on. But - even with today's backing down - the winter fuel debacle is likely to live long in the memory of the electorate and haunt Labour for a very long time.
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Assisted dying Bill a ‘threat to patients', doctors tell MPs
The assisted dying Bill is a 'real threat to both patients and the medical workforce', around 1,000 doctors have warned MPs. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the Commons for debate on Friday, with MPs expected to consider further amendments. But in a letter published this week, doctors from across the NHS urged MPs to listen to those 'who would have to deliver the consequences of this deeply flawed Bill'. They warned that it 'poses a real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. In its current form, the proposed legislation, which applies only to England and Wales, would mean terminally ill adults with only six months left to live could apply for assistance to end their lives, subject to the approval of two doctors and an expert panel. Last month, MPs approved a change in the Bill to ensure no medical staff would be obliged to take part in assisted dying. Doctors already had an opt-out, but the new clause extends that to anyone, including pharmacists and social care workers. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. 'Urge you to vote against it' The letter to MPs said: 'As experienced medical professionals who regularly work with dying patients and who have reviewed the worldwide evidence on assisted dying, it is our opinion that this Bill poses a real threat to both patients and the medical workforce, and we urge you to vote against it. 'We are concerned that the private member's Bill process has not facilitated a balanced approach to the collection of evidence and input from key stakeholders including doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups. 'This Bill will widen inequalities, it provides inadequate safeguards and, in our collective view, is simply not safe. 'This is the most important piece of healthcare legislation for 60 years and we urge you to listen to the doctors who would have to deliver the consequences of this deeply flawed Bill.'
