Zia Yusuf: Reform UK burka row is 'storm in a teacup'
Former Reform UK chairman Zia Yusuf has called a row over a social media post - in which he said it was "dumb" for one of his MPs to call for a burka ban - a "storm in a teacup". Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Yusuf said he regretted the post and that "exhaustion led to a poor decision". Shortly after criticising MP Sarah Pochin, Yusuf quit as chairman saying that trying to get Reform UK elected was not "a good use of my time".However, two days later he returned to work for the party albeit in a different role, leading the party's Doge unit, a team inspired by the US Department of Government Efficiency, set up by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
The initiative aims to cut wasteful spending in the councils Reform now controls.Asked why he had resigned as chairman, Yusuf said: "I've been working pretty much non-stop, virtually no days off."It is very difficult to keep going at that pace."He said one of the reasons he had "changed his decision so quickly" and returned to work for the party, was that he had been "inundated" by supportive messages from Reform voters and members.
The series of events began last Wednesday when Pochin, the newly-elected MP for Runcorn and Helsby, asked Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer if he would join France and Denmark in banning the burka, a veil worn by some Muslim women that covers the face and body, "in the interests of public safety".The following day Yusuf, who is a Muslim, posted 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".Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Yusuf said "the thing that frustrated me at the time" was that Pochin had not chosen to ask something that was party policy.Asked for his views on a ban, he said: "If I was an MP I would think about it very deeply, I think I probably would be in favour of banning face coverings in public writ large, not just the burka."I'm very queasy and uneasy about banning things that for example would be unconstitutional in the US but we have a particular situation in the UK."He said he did not believe Islam was "a threat to the country" but added that the UK had "a problem with assimilation".
Over the weekend, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch was also asked her views on banning the burka. She told the Telegraph: "People should be allowed to wear whatever they want, not what their husband is asking them to wear or what their community says that they should wear."However, she said that organisations should be able to decide what their staff wear and that she asked people coming to her constituency surgeries to remove face coverings "whether it's a burka or a balaclava". "I'm not talking to people who are not going to show me their face," she added.The Muslim Council of Britain accused her of "desperation" adding: "Kemi Badenoch isn't setting the agenda - she's scrambling to keep up with Reform UK's divisive rhetoric."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Royal College of Pathologists comes out against assisted dying
The Royal College of Pathologists, which represents medical examiners, has come out against assisted dying. It said it could not support Kim Leadbeater 's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill because of the role that it was expected to play in the assisted dying process. Under the Bill, assisted deaths will not be automatically referred to a coroner, which is usual practice for potentially unnatural deaths and when a drug, authorised or otherwise, brings about death. This will mean that it is for medical examiners to scrutinise assisted deaths. The professional body that represents them says that they are not qualified to do so and warn that a lack of resourcing means that medical examiners may be pulled away from other parts of their vital work. Ms Leadbeater on Tuesday defended not involving coroners in the process. She said there was 'no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry' because adequate safeguards were in place. It comes as the Bill returns to the Commons for a debate on Friday, and a vote on the legislation is expected next week. Dr Suzy Lishman, senior adviser on medical examiners for the Royal College of Pathologists, said that the college had no position on the 'ethical issues' of legalising assisted dying. In a statement, Dr Lishman said: 'The college's concerns relate only to the involvement of medical examiners after an assisted death has taken place. 'As part of their scrutiny, medical examiners would need to review the process leading up to the decision to authorise an assisted death and the circumstances of the assisted death, which they are not qualified to do. 'Notification to the coroner following an assisted death would ensure independent judicial review, which is particularly important given the concerns raised by many individuals, organisations and medical royal colleges about the lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill for vulnerable people. 'Lawyers, not doctors, are the most appropriate professionals to review these deaths. The medical examiner system was implemented to detect problems with medical care, not to identify discrepancies or malintent in the legal process required for assisted deaths.' Dr Lishman also raised concerns about the need of 'significant' training and resources needed for medical examiners to be able to perform the role in the process. She said that this would risk 'potentially taking medical examiners away from their current important role'. The Royal College of Pathologists concluded: 'Coronial referral for assisted deaths would be in line with current regulations, with all deaths due to a medical intervention or medicinal product being notified.' Last year, Thomas Teague KC, the former chief coroner for England and Wales from 2020-24, expressed concern about the lack of coroner involvement in the Bill. In a letter to The Telegraph, he wrote: 'Since the coroner's jurisdiction affords a powerful deterrent against misfeasance, the public may wonder why the Bill proposes to abandon such a robust safeguard.' A letter signed by around 1,000 doctors from across the NHS published this week said that the Bill is a 'real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. They said: '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.' The Royal College of Pathologists is the latest royal college to come out against the legislation, after the Royal College of Psychiatrists voiced their opposition to the Bill last month. Ms Leadbeater said: 'The Bill does not prevent any assisted death being referred to a coroner, however this would not be required in the majority of cases. 'Coroners investigate deaths that have been reported to them if they think that the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of death is unknown, or the person died in prison or in custody. None of these would apply to a legal, assisted death under the terms of this Bill. 'Eligibility for an assisted death would have been assessed in advance by two independent doctors and a multi-disciplinary panel overseen by a commissioner who would be a High Court judge or retired judge. 'Each of these assessments would be subject to the extensive safeguards contained in the Bill to protect everybody, including the most vulnerable. 'Consequently, most cases would not require a judicial investigation after a person has died, and there would be no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry. 'However, in the event of any doubt at all, it would be open to a medical examiner, a family member or anybody with concerns to ask a coroner to investigate.'
The Sun
22 minutes ago
- The Sun
Ed Miliband accused of ‘rewriting history' after claiming winter fuel axe was to stop millionaires cashing in
ED Miliband was accused of 'rewriting history' yesterday after he claimed scrapping winter fuel was about stopping millionaires getting payments. The bungling Net Zero Secretary tried to justify Labour's original decision to strip the handout by suggesting the pensioners who would've missed out were all rich. 2 2 But some of them earned as little as £12,000 per year. Mr Miliband said: 'The principal question was, the richest in our society, should they get the winter fuel payment, should millionaires, should the richest get the winter fuel payment? 'I think the answer for most people to that is no.' The Net Zero Secretary's desperate bid to explain scrapping winter fuel payments – before the decision was partially reversed – was blasted by senior Tories, who accused him of spouting a 'pack of lies'. Shadow Energy Secretary Andrew Bowie told The Sun: 'Red Ed is even more out of touch than we thought if he thinks people will believe this pack of lies. 'The economy is worse off than when they found it - taxes higher, unemployment higher and living standards lower. 'He is just trying to rewrite history to try and cover up Labour's embarrassing U-turn.' Meanwhile, a flagship Net Zero plan has been spared ahead of next week's spending review — to opponents' dismay. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has ensured his £13billion warm homes scheme will not be downgraded after negotiations with the Treasury. Chancellor Rachel Reeves decided not to cut the cash which allows heating upgrades through better insulation, solar panels and heat pumps.
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
MPs call for UK to recognise Palestine after Government sanctions ministers
MPs have called for the Government to recognise the state of Palestine at a summit next week, hours after the Foreign Secretary confirmed the sanctioning of two Israeli government ministers. Foreign minister Hamish Falconer faced repeated cross-party calls from MPs to recognise Palestine at the meeting in New York. In response, Mr Falconer did not rule out the move, saying he had 'no doubt' he would return to the Commons to update MPs. It came as the UK imposed an asset freeze and travel ban on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's security minister and finance minister, respectively. The move came alongside Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway. When asked about the recognition of Palestine by Liberal Democrat foreign spokesperson Calum Miller, Mr Falconer said: 'The two-state solution conference next week is an important moment we're discussing with our friends and allies our approach to that conference and no-doubt I will return to this house, with your permission Mr Speaker, to discuss further.' Mr Miller had said: 'The time has also come to listen to members on all sides of this House and officially to recognise the independent state of Palestine. Will the Government commit to taking this vital step at next week's summit in New York? 'Recognition will demonstrate the UK's commitment to self-determination but also make clear that, building on today's announcement, the UK will do all it can to wrest control away from the extremes and give both Israelis and Palestinians hope of a lasting peace.' Conservative MP for Herne Bay and Sandwich, Sir Roger Gale, had chastised the Government for not taking more action. He said: 'When the minister came to the despatch box, I had expected to hear something constructive. What we've heard is the sanctioning of two people. The United Kingdom Government could unilaterally recognise Palestine. The United Kingdom Government could show the world and lead.' He added: 'When is the Government going to do something?' Labour MP Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central), who was denied access to the occupied West Bank earlier this year, agreed with the calls. She said: 'Annexation is real. It is happening. Partners in the region are calling for recognition before it's too late.' Ms Mohamed continued: 'Does the minister agree with me that we must not throw recognition into the long grass? That failure to recognise next week at the UN conference implies that Israel does have a veto, and that the Israeli government will continue to annexe and terrorise Palestinians in the West Bank. If we do not recognise now, there will be no Palestinian state to recognise.' Mr Falconer said: 'Recognition is right at the centre of any discussion of a two-state solution.' The minister had earlier told MPs the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine was in critical danger. He said the rhetoric of Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich did not represent the majority of Israelis. He said: 'This is an affront to the rights of Palestinians, but it is also against the interests of Israelis, against their long-term security and democracy.' Later in the session, Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) accused the Government of doing the 'bare minimum' while Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse further pressed the minister on whether recognition at the summit is now 'off the table'. Mr Falconer said 'we are doing everything we can', adding: 'We are so incredibly frustrated by the scenes that meet us, meet everybody behind me, and I would say gently to (Mr Malthouse), he has no monopoly on the morality of this situation.' The minister went on to say settler expansion had increased hugely in recent years, and last year had seen the worst settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank on record. He added that this year is on track to be just as violent. 'This is an attempt to entrench a one-state reality,' he told MPs. He continued: 'The gravity of this situation demands further action. The reality is that these human rights abuses, incitement to violence, extremist rhetoric comes … from individuals who are ministers in this Israeli government.' Mr Falconer added: 'We have told the Israeli government that we would take tougher action if this did not stop. It still did not. The appalling rhetoric has continued unchanged. Violent perpetrators continue to act with impunity and with encouragement. 'So, let me tell the House now, when we say something, we mean it. Today we have shown, with our partners, two extremists we will not stand by while they wreck the prospects for future peace.' Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said: 'The situation in the Middle East and the suffering we are seeing is serious and completely intolerable. Dame Priti added: 'We all want to see a better future for the Israeli and Palestinian people, and the UK must continue to play a leading role in achieving this.' She told MPs the previous Conservative government considered sanctioning the two ministers. 'The minister will be aware that the sanctioning of individuals is always under review, that is the right policy,' she said. 'And in the case of Israel, this has been previously considered even by Lord Cameron, who has spoken of that in the last government.' DUP MP Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) suggested Mr Falconer is 'pandering to the increasingly loud anti-Israel voices on his backbenches', adding: 'The minister must know that this will not bring peace to Gaza.' Mr Falconer replied: 'I have spoken about the perilous decline of the situation in the West Bank, and indeed events of the last two weeks, and I've also spoken about the importance of co-ordinating with allies. So, I don't think I have anything further to say.'
