Zia Yusuf didn't leave Reform because he was a victim of racism
Zia Yusuf was billed by some as one of the rising stars of British politics – so his abrupt resignation as chairman of Reform UK has created quite a splash.
Wading in with his typical opportunistic identitarianism, former leader of the SNP, Humza Yousaf, said on X that Yusuf's departure from Reform should serve as an example to all 'people of colour' – that the 'hard-right' would never accept them, even if they make sizeable financial donations. He added that it was no surprise that the insurgent challenger party of the Right eventually dispensed with their 'brown, son-of-an-immigrant, Muslim' party chairman.
While there have been reports of Yusuf being sidelined within Reform for some time, the straw that broke the camel's back appears to be a disagreement between him and the party's newest MP, Sarah Pochin.
In PMQs, the recently elected MP for Runcorn and Helsby asked Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer whether he would entertain the possibility of introducing restrictions on the wearing of the burqa in the UK. Yusuf seemingly took issue with this by publicly rebuking Pochin on X. He said it was 'dumb' to argue for measures which were not official Reform policy.
The writing was on the wall for Yusuf after the spat with Pochin. She is Reform's first female MP, and insulting her in public over a question in the Commons about banning the burqa – being a Muslim man – was political self-destruction and contradicted his own emphasis on 'professionalising' the party.
The question itself was an entirely reasonable one. Morocco – a predominantly Muslim country where Sunni Islam is the state religion – banned the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of the burqa back in 2017. This was on the grounds of security considerations and part of a broader approach to combat Salafist influences in the North African country.
If Yusuf was disappointed that certain procedures should have been followed by Pochin, this should have been discussed in private and he should have raised the importance of party discipline and order as chairman. This would have been responsible and professional chairmanship.
While there is no doubt that Yusuf suffered a great amount of racist and anti-Muslim abuse from what the Reform leader Nigel Farage has labelled 'alt-right' trolls, a more plausible explanation for Yusuf's resignation is that he found the transition from business to politics difficult – and understandably so.
In the world of business, he is unquestionably successful: he co-founded a luxury concierge company which was later sold to Capital One in a £233 million deal. But chairing a fledgling political party requires a greater degree of patience – especially when it comes to instilling organisational discipline and order as part of a broader professionalisation strategy.
Whether it was restlessness, disillusionment, or clashing with other personalities, Yusuf the businessman had clearly grown frustrated in his political role. And nobody can blame him for that.
While the likes of Humza Yousaf would love nothing more than to portray Zia Yusuf as a non-white Muslim victim of ethno-nationalist persecution, the reality is far more complicated.
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 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.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Herald's Unspun Live heads to the Edinburgh Festival Fringe
The future of Scotland will take centre stage at this year's Edinburgh Festival Fringe, as The Herald's flagship politics podcast hosts a series of live conversations with the country's political leaders. The new show — Unspun Live at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe — runs from 4–7 August at Summerhall's Dissection Room, featuring a different high-profile guest each evening. Across four nights, audiences will hear from First Minister John Swinney, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes, and Britain's leading polling expert, Professor Sir John Curtice. Tickets are available now — click here to book your place at Unspun Live. These discussions will move beyond the usual political talking points, exploring the personal motivations, challenges and life experiences that shape Scotland's most influential figures. Professor Sir John Curtice and guestsThe series opens on 4 August with Professor Sir John Curtice, who will be joined by special guests to take the political temperature of the nation and analyse the trends influencing the next Holyrood election. Click here to buy tickets to Unspun Live with John Curtice and guests John Swinney (Image: Gordon Terris) On 5 August, John Swinney will make a rare festival appearance. He will be interviewed by The Herald's Brian Taylor — the legendary former political editor of BBC Scotland, who has been covering the First Minister for more than 25 years. The SNP leader will reflect on his first year leading the Scottish Government, the challenges facing his party and the country, and share a personal perspective on leadership and life in high office. Click here to buy tickets for Unspun Live with John Swinney Anas Sarwar reading The Herald (Image: Gordon Terris) On 6 August, attention turns to the opposition. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar will discuss one of the most dramatic years in his party's recent history. Buoyed by a strong performance at Thursday's by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, his appearance comes at a pivotal moment in his campaign to lead the next Scottish Government. Click here to buy tickets for Unspun Live with Anas Sarwar Kate Forbes speaking to The Herald (Image: Colin Mearns) Closing the series on 7 August is Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes. A former SNP leadership contender and key figure in the Cabinet, she will offer insights into the Government's economic priorities — and reflect on her political journey to date. Click here to buy tickets for Unspun Live with Kate Forbes Each Unspun Live session will be hosted by journalists and columnists from The Herald. The events will combine political analysis with personal storytelling, offering audiences a rare chance to engage with both the public views and private reflections of Scotland's leading politicians. Audience members will also be invited to put their questions directly to the guests, ensuring a two-way conversation about Scotland's political direction — and the people behind the headlines. Catherine Salmond, Editor of The Herald, said: 'We are delighted to bring the world's longest-running national newspaper into the heart of the world's largest arts festival. 'As Scotland faces a pivotal election in 2026, there is real value in having these conversations live on stage — where our readers and the wider public can engage directly with the people shaping our country's future. 'For those with a serious interest in Scottish politics, The Herald remains an essential read, combining authoritative coverage with unparalleled access to the key players and issues that matter. 'It is all part of our commitment to fostering understanding and informed debate — ensuring Scots have access to the insight they need, whether in our pages or face to face.' Click here to book your tickets now via the Summerhall box office.
3 hours ago
Trump banned travel from 12 countries, but included some exceptions to avoid legal battles
MIAMI -- The new travel ban on citizens of 12 countries that restricted access to people from seven others includes some exceptions, part of the administration's efforts to withstand the legal challenges that a similar policy known as the 'Muslim ban' faced during Donald Trump's first administration. The ban announced Wednesday applies to people from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The restrictions are for people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, who are outside the United States and don't hold a visa. Some exceptions apply only to specific countries, like Afghanistan. Others are for most of the countries on the list, or are more general and unclear, like the policies for foreign visitors planning to come to the U.S. for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, two of the events President Donald Trump has said he is more excited to host. Some experts agree that the current ban includes exceptions and has fixed some issues that were subject to litigation in the first travel ban. 'Absolutely, the administration is trying to avoid the problems that they had with the first proclamation,' said Jeff Joseph, president-elect at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. He anticipated, nonetheless, that lawsuits are 'going to come anyway.' In one of the most confusing moments of his first administration, Trump issued an executive order in 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. People from those countries were barred from getting on flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after landing. Among them were students, faculty, businesspeople, tourists and people visiting family. The order, dubbed as 'Muslim ban' by critics, faced legal challenges in the courts for about a year and was amended twice after opponents argued in the courts that it was unconstitutional and illegal. A version of the first travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The new ban takes effect Monday at 12 a.m. It does not have an end date. __Green card holders __Dual citizens, including U.S. citizens who have citizenship of the banned countries __Some athletes and their coaches traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events __Afghans who worked for the U.S. government or its allies in Afghanistan or are holders of special visas __Iranians from an ethnic or religious minority who are fleeing prosecution __Certain foreign national employees of the U.S. government that have served abroad for at least 15 years, and their spouses and children __People who were granted asylum or admitted to the U.S. as refugees before the travel ban took effect __People with U.S. family members who apply for visas in connection with their spouses, children or parents __Diplomats and foreign government officials on official visits __People traveling to the U.N. headquarters in New York on official U.N. business __Representatives of international organizations and NATO on official visits in the United States __Children adopted by U.S. citizens Trump said nationals of the countries included in the ban pose 'terrorism-related' and 'public safety' risks, as well as risks of overstaying their visas. Some of these countries, he said, had 'deficient' screening or have refused to take back their citizens. The Proclamation includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories and individuals whose entry serves U.S. national interests. Critics of the 2017 ban said that it was racial and targeted Muslim countries. Now the policy is broader and includes countries like Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela — nations that don't have many Muslims. This will make the argument about racial animus, said Joseph, the immigration attorney. The government has also included potential end dates, and the State Department will evaluate the proclamation every 90 days and determine if it should be extended. The list can be changed, the administration said in a document, if authorities in the designated countries make 'material improvements' to their own rules and procedures. New countries can be added 'as threats emerge around the world.' The travel ban has barred most Afghans hoping to resettle in the U.S. permanently and those hoping to come temporarily, but there are several exemptions. One of them is for special immigrant visa holders who supported the United States' two-decades-long war in Afghanistan. Another exception applies to all countries on the travel ban and allows spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens to enter the U.S. The U.S. government can decide to admit or decline their entrance on a case-by-case basis, considering if they serve a 'United States national interest.' Iran, a soccer power in Asia, is the only targeted country to qualify so far for the World Cup that will be co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico next year. Cuba, Haiti and Sudan are in contention. Sierra Leone might stay involved through multiple playoff games. Burundi, Equatorial Guinea and Libya have very outside shots. But all should be able to send teams if they qualify because the new policy makes exceptions for 'any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, the Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state.' About 200 countries could send athletes to the Summer Games, including those targeted in the travel restrictions, and the exceptions should apply to them if the ban is still in place in its current form. Fans from the target countries willing to travel to the World Cup and the Olympics are not mentioned in the exceptions. Traveling from abroad for the World Cup and the Summer Games is expensive. In many cases, those who can afford the travel are wealthy individuals or people living in the diaspora, who may have different visa options.
