Departure of Reform UK chair Zia Yusuf is latest in a long line of Farage fallings-out
For close watchers of Nigel Farage's party in recent times, however, the departure of the man largely credited with 'professionalising' its operation before last year's general election performance and last month's local election breakthrough is not a shock.
A self-described 'British Muslim patriot', it had not been hard to find Islamophobic commentary about Yusuf among users of Reform UK Facebook groups. Others who left the party – or who have been ejected from it – were angered by his corporate approach, which they blamed for making it a cold house for grassroots veterans and mavericks.
In his 11 months as Reform's chair, Yusuf brought with him the ethos and language that might be more associated with a vibrant tech start-up than a hard-right British political party.
A businessman who made a fortune from selling his luxury concierge service, Velocity Black, in 2023 for a reported $300m, Yusuf exploded on to the political scene last June by donating a six-figure sum to Farage's party.
The two men had known each other for years, having met at a party hosted by the former Ukip treasurer Stuart Wheeler.
In his new role at Reform, Yusuf oversaw a restructuring of the party from branch level upwards, pledging to introduce bespoke technology and enforce the tightest vetting of any political party in Britain in a bid to root out cranks and extremists.
At rallies, he was a regular speaker, initially wowing the grassroots and earning the discreet praise even of political rivals. He was often one of the few non-white people in the room and was the living embodiment of Farage's insistence that Reform was not a racist party.
As recently as Monday, Farage sought to fend off allegations of racism and xenophobia being levelled at Reform, by pointing out at a press conference in Scotland that his party's chair was Scottish born and had 'parents who come from the Indian subcontinent'.
But there had long been rumours that all was not well in Reform, not least after the falling-out that led to the departure of its Great Yarmouth MP, Rupert Lowe. Aside from the online abuse, Yusuf is said to have been increasingly at odds with other senior figures in the party.
This week's controversy over comments in parliament by Reform's newest MP, Sarah Pochin, in which she called on the prime minister to ban the burqa, appears to have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Yusuf wrote on X that it was a 'dumb' question, given that was not party policy.
For some time, Farage and Yusuf appeared to be joined at the hip, frequently appearing side by side, but the party leader did not come in behind his young chair on the Pochin issue.
Yusuf's tweet on X announcing his departure was as blunt as it gets. Crediting himself with having 'quadrupled Reform's membership and delivered historic electoral results', he added: 'I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time.'
The response from Farage – also delivered, as custom now dictates, on X – was, on the surface, laudatory, with the leader describing him as 'a huge factor in our success'.
Yet, a paternalistic tone was obvious. 'Politics can be a highly pressured and difficult game and Zia has clearly had enough,' Farage said.
Looking back at the longer sweep of the Reform UK leader's political career, the parting of ways is on brand. Farage's time in charge of various parties – from Ukip to the Brexit party – has been littered with fallings-out. There is, as many of his admirers and critics agree, room for only one trailblazer at the top of any Farage-led party.
However, at a time when Reform is riding high in the polls, the departure of Yusuf comes with a serious question. Could this be the thread that unravels the seemingly unstoppable Reform juggernaut?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Diane Abbott: Why I won't be joining Jeremy Corbyn's new political party
DIANE Abbott has confirmed she will not join Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's new party. Speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival on Thursday, the Hackney North MP said she had 'always been in the Labour Party' and that she was 'probably too old to change'. Abbott called the current state of the Labour Party under Keir Starmer a 'tricky state of play', adding that she 'wouldn't have thought' the party would have been cutting winter fuel payments for elderly citizens and benefits for disabled people once it was back in government. READ MORE: Foreign Office summons Israeli ambassador over illegal settlement plans She said the current first past the post voting system led her to discourage Corbyn from forming the temporarily-named Your Party. Members will name the party properly at a conference later this year. 'If I'm honest, there were people around Jeremy encouraging him to set up a new party and I told him not to', she said. 'It's very difficult under first past the post for a new party to absolutely win. If it wasn't first past the post, then you could see how a new party could come through.' Abbott went on to say that she understood why Corbyn and Sultana decided to form a new party following the pair's exit from the party, with Corbyn having been an independent MP since 2020 and Sultana abruptly quitting Labour in July. (Image: PA) She said she believes the new party will do 'a lot better than people think', joking that many people – including those who are 'not necessarily left-wing' – were 'slightly disappointed' in the direction Labour have headed since coming to power in 2024. Abbott continuously referenced a friend who had warned her not to take swipes at Starmer during the event, which was a celebration of the release of her memoir A Lifetime of Making a Difference. READ MORE: Campaign groups join calls for 'offensive' oath of allegiance to be axed at Holyrood Regardless, she went on to criticise the UK's involvement in the genocide in Palestine, alluding to the many statements government officials have published condemning Benjamin Netanyahu's bombardment of the enclave – despite continuing to sell parts of F-35 fighter jets to Israel and sending spy planes over Gaza. 'We are the country which had the Palestinian mandate between wars. There is no other European party that has the history, that has the legacy, that has the role in the Middle East as Britain has. 'That the British Prime Minister has been so timid about speaking out against Gaza – I think that is really shameful.'
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Liberty Steel's Speciality Steels UK pushed into compulsory liquidation
One of the UK's last remaining steel companies has been pushed into compulsory liquidation. Speciality Steels UK (SSUK), part of the Liberty Steel empire owned by metals tycoon Sanjeev Gupta, employs nearly 1,500 people at sites in Rotherham and several other locations across South Yorkshire. Behind Tata Steel and British Steel, it is the third-largest steel producer in the country. Politics live: Sky News reported that for a deal to rescue the firm, however, they seem to have been rendered unsuccessful. The government-run Insolvency Service confirmed it will be acting as the liquidator. It added that Teneo Financial Advisory Limited would be assisting run the company from now on. While the GFG Alliance, the holding company, says it is disappointed by the decision, local politicians and unions are highly critical of the group. The government says wages will continue to be paid by the liquidator. A spokesperson adds that the government is still "committed to a bright and sustainable future for steelmaking and steel making jobs in the UK". Financial assistance was not able to given to SSUK by the government due to its existing financial and corporate challenges, including ownership and management. Read more In a statement today, GFG's chief transformational officer, Jeffrey Kabel said: "The decision to push Speciality Steel UK into compulsory liquidation, especially when we have support from the world's largest asset manager to resume operations and facilitate creditor recovery, is irrational. "The plan that GFG presented to the court would have secured new investment in the UK steel industry, protecting jobs and establishing a sustainable operational platform under a new governance structure with independent oversight. "Instead, liquidation will now impose prolonged uncertainty and significant costs on UK taxpayers for settlements and related expenses, despite the availability of a commercial solution. "Liberty has pursued all options to make its SSUK viable, including efficiency improvements, reorganisations, customer support, several attempts to find a buyer for the business and intensive negotiations with creditors to restructure debt liabilities. Liberty's shareholder has invested nearly £200m, recognising the vital role steel plays in supplying the UK's strategic defence, aerospace and energy industries. "GFG will now continue to advance its bid for the business in collaboration with prospective debt and equity partners and will present its plan to the official receiver. GFG continues to believe it has the ideas, management expertise and commitment to lead SSUK into the future and attract major investment. GFG's other significant business interests in the UK remain unaffected. "Despite many challenges facing the group and the difficult market conditions, GFG has invested over £2bn into the UK economy since 2013, ensuring the survival of many GFG businesses despite operating losses and safeguarding thousands of jobs that would otherwise have been lost." Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, said GFG's statement was "full of hollow promises". She added: "We know Liberty is a golden goose, but one they have starved for years. "The speciality steel we make is unique and in high demand, it makes no financial sense that GFG furloughed the plant for nearly two years. "Strategically, the government cannot allow Liberty Steel to fail. I am confident they will do all in their power to let it flourish." Charlotte Brumpton-Childs, the national officer for the GMB union, also attacked GFG. She said: "This is another tragedy for UK steel - and the people of South Yorkshire - this time brought on by years of chronic mismanagement by the owners. "But this represents an opportunity for the UK government to take decisive action - as it did with British Steel - to protect this vital UK industry." A government spokesperson said: "We know this will be a deeply worrying time for staff and their families, but we remain committed to a bright and sustainable future for steelmaking and steel making jobs in the UK. "It is now for the independent Official Receiver to carry out their duties as liquidator, including ensuring employees are paid, while we also make sure staff and local communities are supported."
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The UK's year of climate U-turns exposes a deeper failure
We're now halfway through the UK government's critical decade for tackling climate change – and 2025 is fast becoming a year of climate U-turns. Airport expansions have been approved, the phaseout of gas-fired boilers shelved and, under the government's latest industrial strategy, green levies on industrial energy bills that support renewables have been slashed. All while key indicators of global climate stability are deteriorating. As carbon budget and energy policy researchers, we believe the UK's official climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), are failing to hold the government accountable for backsliding on climate action. Worse still, the CCC's recommendation that the UK reach net zero emissions by 2050 does not align with international commitments to limit global warming to 1.5°C and 'well below 2°C'. It also fails to reflect the UN principle of fairness and equity whereby wealthier nations like the UK cut emissions earlier and faster than poorer countries. In fact, it systematically undermines these promises, with the CCC's 2025 seventh carbon budget (a landmark report that advises the UK government how to tackle its emissions for the period 2025-2050) a case in point. Hiding carbon colonialism As a signatory to UN climate agreements, the UK is obligated to 'take precautionary measures' based on 'best available scientific knowledge' to prevent 'threats of serious or irreversible damage' to the climate. This includes setting carbon budgets rooted in the principles of equity and with a high chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. Yet, scientists warn this window is closing fast. Recent research concludes that from 2025, the world can emit no more than 160 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) for a 50% chance of not exceeding 1.5°C. Despite this, the CCC uses a global carbon budget almost 50% higher, at 235GtCO₂. Internationally, the UK ranks tenth in wealth, fourth in historical cumulative emissions, and has per capita historical emissions four times the global average. Yet, the CCC disregards the UN principle that wealthy nations, whose prosperity was built on fossil fuels, must shoulder greater responsibility to rapidly cut emissions. With just 0.84% of the global population, the UK's equal share of the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget (160 GtCO₂) would be 1.34 GtCO₂. The CCC allocates it 3.7 GtCO₂ – nearly three times its equal per person share. However, even an equal share allocation would fall far short of the UN's equity framework. Past CCC analyses have likewise embedded significant inequities. Such misappropriation of the carbon budget shifts the burdens of climate change on to more vulnerable communities globally, prioritising the UK's high-carbon norms over the right of low-income nations to sustainable development. The CCC's departure from the UN's core equity principle reveals how colonial norms remain deeply embedded in climate policy. Carbon removal roulette Major societal transformations, such as moving from private car to public transport, are largely absent from the CCC's recommendations. In contrast, large-scale engineered removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and fossil fuel carbon capture and storage are assumed to be technically and socio-economically feasible. The CCC definition of 'feasible' prioritises near-term political convenience over scientific integrity and climate stability. Despite a 4% decline in car travel over the past decade, the CCC estimates a per person increase of 10% by 2050. By avoiding pathways that challenge consumption norms, the CCC sidelines proven approaches like reducing car dependence or enforcing robust energy efficiency standards. This highly cautious approach to behavioural change contrasts sharply with its assumptions on the future deployment of CDR, projecting UK engineered removals to increase from 0-13MtCO₂ by 2035, and 36MtCO₂ by 2050 – or nine and 26 times the total global level in 2024. This scale of expansion contradicts historical trends. Similar heroic assumptions underpin CCS projections in electricity and blue hydrogen production (from natural gas). The CCC proposes the UK capture and store 33 MtCO₂ annually by 2050, triple the current global rate – for a technology that has barely advanced despite decades of promises and investment. While some carbon removal is necessary to offset 'impossible to mitigate' emissions from agriculture – for example, nitrous oxide from fertiliser use – using CDR to justify ongoing fossil fuel use is a high-risk approach that undermines the Paris climate commitments. Read more: Nature-based carbon removal options are also overstated. The CCC projects removing 30 MtCO₂ per year by 2050 but insufficiently addresses the impacts on food security and land conflicts. Though reforesting offers ecological benefits, climate-driven wildfires, droughts and pests can rapidly re-release stored carbon. Such insecure carbon storage cannot offset guaranteed emissions from burning fossil fuels. Ultimately, the CCC is deeply conservative on near-term changes to consumption norms, while embracing dangerously optimistic projections of future carbon removal technologies. It accepts temperatures will overshoot global targets significantly, and banks on future correction – despite the risk of triggering irreversible climate tipping points. Hard truth The allure of the CCC's net zero 2050 advice is that it claims to offer a pathway to avoid both major social transformation and a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, yet still meet the UK's fair share of the 1.5°C commitment. This politically appealing interpretation is scientifically flawed, downplays the gravity of climate risks and disregards principles of international justice. The CCC and others must stop being silent on these critical issues and end the carbon colonialism at the heart of the climate agenda. The UK's net zero 2050 framing isn't just delaying urgent action, it normalises ecological breakdown while maintaining the illusion of responsible stewardship. It worsens climate impacts and undermines preparedness by presenting inadequate measures as 1.5°C compatible. A fundamental rethink of the UK's climate policy requires a consensus that is grounded in equity, scientific integrity and transformative ambition. Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who've subscribed so far. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Kevin Anderson is presenting views here that belong to the named authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of researchers within the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Chris Jones has received funding from UKRI. The views in this article are of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Gaurav Gharde does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
