Farage pledges target to halve crime if Reform enters government
Proposals to recruit more police officers and create new prison places contribute to the estimated £3.48 billion annual bill for the party's plans on crime and justice.
Speaking at a press conference in Westminster on Monday, Mr Farage said: 'Reform will be the toughest party on law and order and on crime that this country has ever seen.
'We will aim to cut crime by half in the first five years of Reform government. We will take back control of our streets. We will take back control of our courts, of our prisons.
'If you're a criminal, I am putting you on notice today that from 2029 or whenever that may be, either you obey the law or you will face very serious justice,' he added.
Documents handed out at Monday's press conference show that the party estimate a £17.4 billion cost over the course of a five year parliament for their plans, with a £3.48 billion annual cost.
Plans to recruit 30,000 more police officers take up the biggest chunk of this bill, estimated at £10.5 billion overall.
Mr Farage has pledged 12,400 new prison places on MoD land at a cost of £5 billion, and five new 'Nightingale Prisons' to be built with the assistance of the Army.
He also wants to see more than 10,000 more prison places freed up by deporting foreign criminals to their country of origin through bilateral agreements, and Mr Farage claimed he was 'in conversation with Edi Rama', the Albanian prime minister over prisoners.
I accept Prime Minister @EdiRamaal 's invitation to visit Albania as his guest of honour.
We will discuss the return of Albanian prisoners. pic.twitter.com/PREL64fbfr
— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) June 30, 2025
The two leaders have been involved in a social media spat over the matter.
In a video on social media posted last month, Mr Farage said he would visit Albania and 'report back' after an invitation from Mr Rama.
In response, Mr Rama said: 'I genuinely hope your upcoming visit to Albania inspires you to fight for ideas, rather than against people — in the spirit of the great liberal tradition your country has long stood for.'
The party also wants prison places overseas in places such as El Salvador, a 'dynamic prisons' policy that the party estimates will cost £1.25 billion over the course of a parliament.
Mr Farage said that he would be prepared to take back British criminals who are in foreign prisons as part of his plans.
He told reporters at the press conference that 'of course we're prepared to take British prisoners from other parts of the world.
'That's fair, right and proper.'
Mr Farage pledged that Monday's event was the start of a six-week campaign on law and order, as Parliament is about to begin its summer recess break.
Labour chairwoman Ellie Reeves claimed 'Reform is more interested in headline-chasing than serious policy-making in the interests of the British people'.
She added: 'Farage's Reform MPs voted against the Labour Government's landmark Crime and Policing Bill which tackles antisocial behaviour, shoplifting, violence against women and girls, knife crime, and child abuse.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
5 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
New UK driving laws to be introduced soon after being 'fast tracked'
A new consultation has been launched on the automated passenger services (APS) permitting scheme and the draft stature instrument, which will dictate the future of self-driving vehicles Fresh motoring regulations will arrive on British roads in the coming months as autonomous vehicles begin their rollout. Labour MP and minister Lilian Greenwood has unveiled a consultation regarding the automated passenger services (APS) licensing framework and the draft statutory instrument. The MP is encouraging both the general public and industry experts to share their perspectives on the future of driverless cars. The APS framework represents a crucial element of the Automated Vehicles Act, which will govern self-driving taxis, bus-style services and cabs once fully enacted in the latter half of 2027. The government has chosen to accelerate trials of autonomous passenger vehicles to spring 2026, enabling companies to test small-scale operations without a safety driver for the first time, reports Birmingham Live. Advancing these driverless vehicle trials will generate 38,000 employment opportunities to boost household incomes, spurring investment to support British engineering expertise and establishing an industry valued at £42 billion by 2035. Future of roads minister, she explained: "Self-driving vehicles are one of the most exciting opportunities to improve transport for so many people, especially those in rural areas or unable to drive." "We want to work with passengers and industry to make this new form of transport safe and accessible, as we take our next steps towards adoption. Labour MP and minister Lilian Greenwood continued: "This technology doesn't just have the potential to improve transport for millions of people. It will help stimulate innovation, create thousands of jobs, and drive investment to put money money in people's pockets-all part of delivering our Plan for Change." Mike Hawes, SMMT chief executive, also added: "Britain's self-driving vehicle revolution moves one step closer, with today's announcements putting the country on track to reap the road safety and socio-economic benefits this technology can deliver." "Pilot rollout of commercial self-driving services from next year will widen public access to mobility, while the consultation will ensure the technology is deployed in a safe and responsible way." He concluded: "These latest measures will help Britain remain a world leader in the development and introduction of self-driving vehicles, a manifest application of AI at its finest." As explained, self-driving vehicles can facilitate people to get around more easily, especially for those who don't have a license. It can also add a new method of transport in rural areas, improving mobility and overall road safety by reducing the number of accidents.
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Your move, Jenrick… passed over for promotion, what will Kemi's biggest rival do next?
Robert Jenrick insists that he is happy where he is. I am told that he 'genuinely' did not want to be shadow chancellor, and that he is 'concentrating on the job at hand' as shadow justice secretary. 'That's what Kemi [Badenoch] has asked him to do for her, and that's what he has to focus on,' says an ally. Jenrick focuses on it effectively, finding the holy grail of 'cut-through' for his recent video in which he accosted fare-dodgers and asked them if they would go back and pay. That is just about in his justice department brief – but he is also known for ranging more widely in his social media communications. Pride of place in his X (I still call it Twitter) account is a two-minute video setting out his assessment of Keir Starmer's first year, a 'year of lies and decline'. It is the sort of thing a leader of the opposition might produce – if they were unwise enough to use the word 'lies'. Jenrick's ambition is taken for granted across Westminster. At his summer reception for journalists at No 10 last night, the prime minister joked about Jenrick's imminent replacement of Kemi Badenoch. Most senior Conservatives who are no longer MPs say the same three things privately. One, that they do not expect Badenoch to survive as leader through this parliament. Two, that they expect Jenrick to succeed her. And three, that they think he will do a deal with Nigel Farage to 'unite the right' before the election. Jenrick's allies try to squash such talk – or, at least, they try to make it clear that their man is not encouraging it. One tells me: 'Rob is concentrating on the job at hand as shadow justice, trying to highlight issues that need fixing and then putting pressure on the government to fix them.' When I point out that leadership speculation is rife, this ally says: 'Others can talk about whatever they like, but Kemi's job is incredibly tough and she's doing a good job. It's not for Rob to get into any leadership chatter.' But the chatter is happening anyway. Will Lloyd has an article in the New Statesman repeating a lot of it, and predicting that Badenoch will be challenged when the rules allow it after she has been leader for a year in November. This may be right, even if a lot of the criticism of Badenoch is unfair. I do not believe that either Jenrick or James Cleverly would have done any better over the past year: the Conservative Party's problems go much deeper than something that can be fixed by a swashbuckling performance at Prime Minister's Questions or a viral video. The problem is the Tory government's record, particularly on immigration, and no one who was a minister in that government is going to escape that record until they have served several years in quarantine. But politics isn't fair, and so the Tories might change leader, despite Badenoch trying to shore up her position by bringing Cleverly into the shadow cabinet. It might happen because it is one of the few things that a Tory MP can actually do that might make a difference, even if they know that it probably won't. This is despite the doubling of the threshold for triggering a leadership election. After Badenoch was elected, Bob Blackman, the chair of the Tory backbench 1922 Committee, announced that a vote of no confidence in the leader would require private letters from one-third of Tory MPs, namely 40 out of 120, as opposed to the 15 per cent, or 18 MPs, previously needed. As Jenrick had 41 votes in the final MPs' ballot last year, though, this higher number is clearly attainable – even if it probably wouldn't happen straight away in November. Tory MPs would be right to hesitate long and hard before they take such a step. The party has got into the habit of changing leaders, which makes it look like a desperate and directionless rabble. And if it is not obvious that Jenrick would have done better over the past year, why would he do significantly better in future? As for doing a deal with Farage, what is in it for Reform UK? It is not too strong to say that Reform activists hate the Tory party, and there is an equal and opposite repulsion, in that many Tory voters would rather vote Lib Dem than have anything to do with Farage. Nor were relations between Jenrick and Reform smoothed by last week's clash between Jenrick and Zia Yusuf, the head of Reform's 'Doge' unit. Yusuf claimed that 'one of the team who post to my X account accidentally pressed 'like' on an awful antisemitic tweet' about Jenrick, whose wife is Jewish. Jenrick refused to accept Yusuf's apology, calling it 'bulls***'. This spat complicates the other big option for Jenrick, which would be to defect to Reform. This simply 'isn't a consideration', according to Jenrick's ally, and it does seem unlikely. It would depend on Jenrick not becoming Tory leader but deciding, nearer to the next election, that Reform was likely to overtake the Tories in the number of seats in the Commons. Then, if Jenrick is as ambitious as many of his colleagues assume he is, he might think that his best chance of a senior ministerial job would be in a Reform-led government. As I say, unlikely. But a lot of unlikely things have happened in politics.
New Statesman
7 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The government's government problem
The Environment Secretary Steve Reed promised to revolutionise the water industry. But what has happened? Photo byThe heavy rain that arrived last week was, for the nation's gardeners, an encouraging sign after what had been the driest spring since 1893. But the sad truth is that relatively little of that water will have ended up in the country's reservoirs, the newest of which was completed in 1992. Most of it ran into our combined sewers, where rainwater is mixed with household waste. The untreated effluent then overflowed into our rivers and inshore waters, giving them a fresh coat of bleach, microplastics and faecal matter, just in time for the school holidays. Fortunately the government had prepared by adding this long-running disaster to the list of things it is planning to do something about, unless anyone has any strong objections. The public wants water companies to stop extracting tens of billions of pounds from a captive market of bill-payers while turning the country's waterways into open sewers. The Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, has promised them a 'revolution'. Will the system be renationalised? Are the most highly remunerated executives going to prison? Will they be forced to swim through the noxious gubbins while a gleeful public pelts them with toilet rolls? Not quite. Ofwat and the Drinking Water Inspectorate will be replaced by a new regulator, hopefully by 2027. Robespierre was not available for comment. On the same day, the Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, revealed that she, too, had a revolutionary solution to one of Britain's deep, long-running problems: the fact that very few people of the current generation of workers are saving enough for retirement. Almost half of all working-age adults are putting nothing at all away for later life, and will spend the last 20 years of their lives wholly dependent on the state. This is a slow-moving disaster that can be seen happening from a long way off, and there is a set of options that have been discussed by economists and pension fund companies for decades. Employers could be told that they have to contribute to employees' pensions whether or not employees opt out of paying in (as many people on lower incomes do). Auto-enrolment could start at 16, or as soon as one starts working. The default rate of contributions could be bumped up to 12 per cent. We could make pension contributions mandatory, as they are in Switzerland and for some employees in Australia. But let's not be too hasty: the first step is to bring back the Pension Commission, which will also look at the options, really stare at them, like one of those magic 3D pictures, until the right one pops out. And then it will report to the government in 2027. Both these commitments to doing something, eventually, follow the hotly anticipated 'Leeds Reforms' announced by Rachel Reeves in her Mansion House speech on 15 July. In it, the Chancellor committed to probably doing something about the fact that British companies are underinvested in, and that many British savers are keeping their money in low-interest savings accounts rather than using them to Back British Businesses. Reeves had previously considered making significant changes to cash ISA allowances, but this was a bit contentious, so there will be an advertising campaign, reminiscent of the 1980s 'Tell Sid' adverts, which encouraged the public to buy shares in the newly privatised British Gas. The difference with Thatcher's ad campaign was that Thatcher was actually doing something for Sid to be told about. The thing that was being done (privatisation of state industries) was ideologically driven, inept and ultimately disastrous for the UK economy, but one thing we can say about it is that it did in fact happen. The problem that the Labour government has is that it is a group of very clever, well-intentioned people who do not seem to be able to get things done. The Employment Rights Bill and planning reform are other areas in which good plans are turning into insufficient compromises. The most immediate danger of this trend is that it creates a financial credibility problem. When investors decide how much they will pay for Britain's debt, they are to a great extent making a prediction about two things: the path of inflation (because higher inflation reduces the returns from buying bonds) and how much more debt the government is going to borrow (the more debt it sells, the lower the demand). When the UK is run by a government with a large majority, which is apparently unable to enforce its own policies to save money, a reasonable prediction is that it will have to borrow quite a lot more in the future. This means the market will pay less for our debt, which means our borrowing costs are higher. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Politically, this will combine with growing frustration among the government's own MPs, such as the 100-strong Labour Growth Group, which is increasingly resorting to blatant means of criticism, such as fulminating in the New Statesman about 'the exhausted politics of technocratic incrementalism'. Not all revolutionaries need to be Montagnards, determined to write history in blood. As Camille Desmoulins put it, having been sentenced to death on the order of his old pal Robespierre, 'a little ink would have sufficed'. But in times that demand change, withholding it begins to look less like prudence, and more like the narcissism of people whose political project does not extend beyond holding on to power. [See also: Who is an acceptable migrant?] Related
