Has Reform peaked?
A couple of days ago, I spotted Nigel Farage on the terrace of the House of Commons, enjoying a late afternoon drink in the sun with his fellow Reform MPs. I could hardly complain about his work ethic, as I should have been in the office myself. I saw him looking out across the Thames – content, relaxed, and surrounded by friends, all of whom agree with the bookies' suggestion that he is set to become our next Prime Minister. On top of the polls, on top of the world, the master of all he surveyed.
And yet, only six weeks or so after Reform's triumph at the local elections, is the shine starting to come off Farage? A YouGov poll this week had the party down two points to 27 per cent, with Labour up one to 24 per cent. Reform's lead over Labour has halved in a single week. As relaxed as Farage seemed as he tucked into his pint, is he worried that his momentum is starting to stall?
It's hardly been a peaceful month at Reform HQ. Just as the party was basking in its seizure of ten councils, two mayoralties, and the constituency of Runcorn and Helsby, Farage came under steady attack for his latest pie-in-the-sky policy package: scrapping the two-child limit and introducing a new transferable marriage tax allowance to his already costly plan to lift the income tax threshold to £20,000.
Then we had Zia Yusuf's two-day resignation and his replacement as the party's chairman by self-styled paranormal expert Dr David Bull; a man who has claimed that 'immigration is the lifeblood of this country.' Endless in-fighting, ideological incoherence, a shallow policy platform: the general impression created by Reform is one of unseriousness.
I bet Farage still can't believe his luck: a doubling of his party's vote share in a year, the implosion of the Tories (languishing on 17 per cent in that same YouGov poll), and an utterly useless Labour Government. Downing Street beckons. But if the last year has proven anything, it is how quickly political fortunes can change. One day you're cock of the walk, the next a feather duster. Could voters dump Farage just as quickly as they picked him up?
Certainly. But one hesitates to write off Reform because of only one poll – especially as other pollsters have the party topping 30 per cent. The reasons for Farage's success are structural. Voters hated the Tories, and now they hate Labour for much of the same reasons. With both old parties discredited, why not take a punt on something different? It helps when that this new party is led by one of the best-known politicians in Britain – and one of the few with any credibility on the salient topic of immigration.
A day after I spied Farage on the Commons terrace, I saw him again at a Tufton Street talk on the future of net zero. He was by turns charming, insightful and profound, especially when tracing climate extremism to a broader crisis of godlessness.
Between calling for escalation in the Middle East, and pledging an end to the fracking ban, he seemed confident and unchanged. He will never become a statesman in the traditional mould. But it is always a pleasure to see him at work.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
8 minutes ago
- Times
‘Tell me what to ask about' — MP faces cash for questions claims
A former Conservative minister allowed a company that paid him £60,000 a year to effectively write several of his parliamentary questions, leaked emails have revealed. George Freeman submitted queries to Labour ministers about the sector the firm operates in, potentially handing the company a commercial advantage. He also asked a director at the environmental monitoring company to tell him 'what to ask about', in exchanges that may have breached ethics rules and are likely to see Freeman accused of taking 'cash for questions'. In one exchange, he asked if they could help him 'get the wording right', which he could then 'convert into parliamentary language'. In some examples, the phrases used by the company's director are copied word for word by Freeman in his submitted questions to ministers. The Mid Norfolk MP is also alleged to have held virtual business meetings using his office in Portcullis House. An email appears to show that in one of these meetings he discussed various business objectives with the firm. Freeman, 57, who was first elected as an MP in 2010, resigned as science minister from Rishi Sunak's government in November 2023. He later complained he could not afford to pay his £2,000 a month mortgage on a ministerial salary of £118,300. In April last year, he began acting as a paid adviser to GHGSat Limited, which uses satellites and aircraft sensors to measure greenhouse gases, including methane, from industrial sites and helps businesses monitor and reduce their emissions. Freeman appears to have broken multiple rules set out in the MPs' code of conduct, including lobbying on behalf of a private company he was paid by and using the parliamentary estate for his private business interests. He also appears to have failed to follow the advice issued to him by the advisory committee on business appointments (Acoba), the watchdog that regulates the private sector roles ex-ministers and civil servants can take up after leaving office. Approached on Saturday, Freeman said that, while he did not believe he had done anything wrong, he was immediately referring himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the watchdog responsible for policing MPs' conduct. As science and space minister, Freeman was heavily involved in the sector that GHGSat operates in, although he does not appear to have dealt with the firm while in office or presided over policies, regulation or commercial decisions that would have benefited it. He is now a member of the Commons science and technology committee, as well as a UK trade envoy. The company paid him £5,000 a month for eight hours of work between April last year and March this year. Leaked emails suggest that, while on the payroll, he tabled written parliamentary questions to government departments with the help of the managing director, Dan Wicks. Written parliamentary questions are seen as a vital tool for MPs, allowing them to seek data or information not in the public domain, or press the government to take action. They are only supposed to be tabled as part of their parliamentary duties and not their private business interests. At 11.35am on November 27 last year, Freeman emailed Wicks to notify him that 'following our latest catch up I'm preparing some written parliamentary questions to table on the DSIT [Department for Science and Technology] space data and Desnz [Department for Energy Security and Net Zero] emissions tracking platforms. 'So that I get the wording right can you email me the key technical terms / names of the projects / frameworks and what to ask about & I'll then convert into the right parliamentary language.' At 4.29pm, Wicks replied that Freeman should ask questions of the DSIT to better understand whether it would continue 'investment in national space data activities'. He then listed three specific areas he could ask about. The first was to ask the DSIT whether it would continue to invest in 'the Earth observation Data Pilot run by the Geospatial Commission and whether that will be extended or grown into a pan-government purchasing mechanism'. This was a government-run pilot launched in 2023, when Freeman was still science minister, which was testing ways public bodies could access satellite data to better inform 'analysis in key policy areas, including land use, environmental monitoring and emergency response'. Wicks's second proposal was for Freeman to ask the DSIT whether it planned to 'continue funding the Earth observation data hub as a tool for public sector to access and make use of different Earth observation data'. This was another programme funded by the DSIT, and uses a mix of public and paid-for commercial space data to inform decision making within government, businesses and academia. On GHGSat's website, it stated it supplies data to the hub. Outlining his third proposed question, Wicks added: 'And of course, the Methane programme run by UK Space Agency that makes use of GHGSat data.' Freeman was responsible for the UK Space Agency when he was a minister. He also suggested Freeman ask the agency's chief executive about his recent commitment to 'prioritise 'supporting development of methane emissions measurement best-practices'.' Wicks then suggested Freeman submit a separate question to Ed Miliband's Desnz department to work out whether it would 'start integrating more GHG [greenhouse gas] measurement data' into its methodology for calculating emissions which he said would build on 'investments such as Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measurement and Modelling Advancement (Gemma) to explore the added value of satellite data.' All of the proposals set out in Wicks's email appear to be aimed at obtaining information from ministers that would be beneficial to GHGSat: The following day, at 12.51pm, Freeman emailed a member of his parliamentary staff and asked them to submit questions to ministers via the clerks who formally process written questions on behalf of MPs. He asked his staffer to tick 'any 'interest declaration' box if there is one' — a process which flags that an MP has asked a question that relates to one of their publicly registered interests. While this was done, it was not disclosed that the company had shaped his questions. Freeman then listed five questions for DSIT, all of which draw on the proposals Wicks had made the day before: Freeman also requested three questions be submitted to Desnz and a final question be tabled to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: A search of the parliament's website shows eight of these questions were formally tabled by Freeman over several days in December last year, with ministers responding several weeks later to each of them. The MPs' code of conduct makes clear that 'taking payment in return for advocating a particular matter in the House is strictly forbidden'. It adds that they may not speak in the Commons, vote or initiate parliamentary proceedings, or make approaches to ministers in return for payment — and must not initiate proceedings which would provide financial or material benefit to an organisation or individual from whom they have received financial reward. It also prohibits MPs from pursuing interests which are 'wholly personal', 'such as may arise from a profession or occupation outside the House'. Hannah White, director of the Institute for Government think tank, who previously served as secretary to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said: 'Commons rules are intended to prevent any public perception that 'outside individuals or organisations' might pay an MP in order to benefit from their actions in Parliament. The evidence suggests there are clear questions to answer about whether these rules have been breached.' The Sunday Times has also seen extracts from Freeman's online work calendar showing he had regular meetings with GHGSat and Wicks via Zoom calls from at least July last year until March this year. One, on October 22 between 4.45pm and 5.45pm, listed Freeman as the organiser and the location as 'PCH', short for parliament's Portcullis House, where Freeman's parliamentary office is based. It is alleged by a source that he held several meetings with businesses that are listed on his register of interests using his parliamentary computer. In an email attached to this meeting, Wicks asked Freeman whether he would be able to meet with him and GHGSat's president, Stéphane Germain, 'in person next week' and that they should schedule 'regular' 30-minute catch-ups twice a week. Wicks then outlined priorities they had 'discussed on the call', one of which was 'UK Gov engagement', and another 'engagement strategies with senior officials'. The MPs' code of conduct states that 'excepting modest and reasonable personal use, members must ensure that the use of facilities and services provided to them by parliament, including an office, is in support of their parliamentary activities, and is in accordance with all relevant rules'. When Freeman took up his adviser role with GHGSat, he also received advice from Acoba, the appointments watchdog. It noted that 'there are risks associated with your influence and network of contacts gained whilst in ministerial office', adding: 'In particular, this is a company that is interested in government policy and decisions relating to the civil space sector and emissions.' According to Acoba, Freeman had assured the watchdog that he had 'made it clear to the company that you will not lobby government on its behalf, and this will not form part of your role.' It imposed conditions on the appointment, including a two-year ban on him being 'personally involved in lobbying the UK government or any of its arm's length bodies on behalf of GHGSat Ltd'. Freeman said: 'As a longstanding advocate of important new technologies, companies and industries, working cross-party through APPGs [All-Party Parliamentary Groups] and the select committee, I regularly ask experts for clarification on technical points and terminology, and deeply respect and try to assiduously follow the code of conduct for MPs and the need to act always in the public interest. 'Throughout my 15 years in parliament (and government) I have always understood the need to be transparent in the work I have done for and with commercial clients and charities and am always willing to answer any criticism. I don't believe I have done anything wrong but I am immediately referring myself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and will accept his judgment in due course.' A spokesman for GHGSat said: 'GHGSat retained George Freeman MP for a brief period to help GHGSat understand and navigate the geopolitical environment in the UK and Europe. GHGSat signed a services agreement with Mr Freeman that did not include any lobbying activities and was concluded on the basis of the terms laid out by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. GHGSat takes all applicable laws and regulations concerning lobbying extremely seriously.'
Wales Online
11 minutes ago
- Wales Online
Labour's Welsh secretary thinks Plaid Cymru and Reform UK are no different to one another
Labour's Welsh secretary thinks Plaid Cymru and Reform UK are no different to one another Both are electoral threats to Labour, polling shows Welsh secretary Jo Stevens (Image: Welsh Labour TV/PA ) Plaid Cymru and Reform UK are "two sides of the same coin," Welsh secretary Jo Stevens has said. Speaking at Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno, Ms Stevens criticised both parties who pose a serious electoral threat to her party at the upcoming Senedd election, if poll projects are correct. She said: "Our opponents are two sides of the same coin. Plaid and Reform are divisive nationalists determined to rip our country apart. One with no plan to pay for the NHS, another with plans to sell it off to the highest bidder. "They will destroy the work we have done to create thousands of jobs in renewable energy, in advanced manufacturing, in defence. They will stop our free prescriptions and halt the progress made on waiting lists," she said. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here . Prime Minister Keir Starmer focused on national and international issues in his speech but also directly criticised Nigel Farage's Reform UK. The Senedd election in May 2026 is widely seen as being a huge test for both Eluned Morgan and Keir Starmer. Polling shows Labour could slip from the party in power, for the whole of the devolution period, to third with 18% of the vote. The next election will be fought under a new voting system, with new constituencies and will increase the number of Senedd members from 60 to 96 at a cost of billions. Article continues below In his speech, to open the event, Prime Minister attacked Nigel Farage saying he has "no plan" for Wales. He said the Reform UK leader 'isn't interested in Wales'. Referencing Mr Farage's visit to Port Talbot where he said his party wanted to look at reopening mines in Wales and said that the blast furnaces at the Tata plant in Port Talbot should be restarted. The Port Talbot proposal was widely criticised as being unrealistic. You can read about that here. Mr Farage himself admitted it would cost 'in the low billions' and industry experts and members said not only is the cost prohibitive but it is impossible to restart a closed blast furnace. He didn't directly criticise the reopening of coals mines suggestion by Mr Farage but did use the opportunity to highlight things his administration had done in terms of committing money to coal tip regeneration and miners' pensions. "Nigel Farage isn't interested in Wales, he's interested in Nigel Farage, he takes people for fools. "Just look what he said earlier this month, going to Port Talbot pretending he's got a plan to reopen the blast furnace, he's got no idea what he's talking about. He's got no plan at all. "Let's be clear. What Reform's plans would be mean in practice. Cancelling the electric arc furnace, cancelling the construction work that's on track to start in just a few weeks time, cancelling the 5,000 jobs it'll bring. "That's all you ever need to know about Reform," he said. Reform UK is polling to take seats in the Senedd and a recent UK Parliamentary poll by YouGov showed they would take 23 seats off Labour. Plaid Cymru would also do well at the expense of Labour. Less than a year ago, in the July general election, Labour took 27 of the 32 seats available. You can read that story here. The Senedd election in May 2026 is widely seen as being a huge test for both Eluned Morgan and Keir Starmer. Polling shows Labour could slip from the party in power, for the whole of the devolution period, to third with 18% of the vote. The most recent polling for Wales by YouGov is here. The next election will be fought under a new voting system, with new constituencies and will increase the number of Senedd members from 60 to 96 at a cost of billions. Article continues below
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Albanian PM: We'll take every criminal back if Farage is right
Albania's prime minister has pledged to take back all his country's prisoners in the UK in an escalating row with Nigel Farage over how many of them are in jail. The Reform UK leader challenged Edi Rama on Friday to take back Albanian criminals after accusing him of hypocrisy over comments he made about Britain having become a 'dark place' after withdrawing from the EU. Mr Farage said it was hypocritical to describe the UK as a dark place when one in 50 Albanians in Britain were currently in prison in the UK. The Reform leader, who was shown on opinion polls to be the public's favourite to be the UK's next prime minister on opinion polls, urged Mr Rama to 'show some goodwill and take them all back tomorrow'. Mr Rama, who stands at 6ft 7in tall, has now taken to X to post his response, saying that if Mr Farage's figure was right, he would take all the criminals back and if wrong, he would invite him to Albania as his guest of honour as long as he promised never to badmouth the country again. 'Ooopsss… Mr Nigel Farage himself has just challenged me on the facts!' said Mr Rama in his tweet. 'What an honour – for a 'giant man', as he described me (meaning, of course, from a 'tiny country') – to earn the attention of Britain's unrivalled virtuoso of headline politics. 'He said – and I quote: 'I tell you what, Mr Rama, did you know one in 50 Albanians in Britain are in prison? So show some goodwill and take them all back tomorrow, because this is hypocrisy.' Mr Rama went on to claim Mr Farage's figure was 'bonkers' and a 'classic from the post-truth Brexit playbook'. He added that many Albanians are caught up in an 'outdated and restrictive visa system', but said their rate of criminality 'would be no higher – and likely lower than – that of the British population itself'. He continued: 'Let's both bring our numbers to the table. If your 'one in 50' claim holds water – I will personally commit to taking them all back. That's not a competing headline – it's a public pledge. 'But if your scary stat turns out to be just tabloid fuel, then no apology needed. No drama. Instead, you'll come to Albania – as my guest of honour ... And all I ask in return is the simplest public pledge from you, made while enjoying our country: next time someone badmouths Albanians, you'll be the first to tell them – in your histrionic way – not to do it again.' Ooopsss… Mr. @Nigel_Farage himself has just challenged me on the facts! What an honor — for a "giant man," as he described me (meaning, of course, from a "tiny country") — to earn the attention of Britain's unrivaled virtuoso of headline politics. He… — Edi Rama (@ediramaal) June 27, 2025 Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Farage said he would take up the challenge. 'We will hold Edi Rama to his pledge!' he said. The statistic Mr Farage cited was first reported by The Telegraph when the newspaper compiled a league table of nations based on data from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Office for National Statistics (ONS). This showed there were 10,435 foreign nationals in jails in England and Wales compared to 76,866 British nationals. Nations with fewer than 20 people in UK jails were excluded because of the low sample size. This was cross-referenced with ONS 2021 census data, from which was extracted the number of foreign nationals from each country who do not have a UK passport. There may be some margin for error as some foreign nationals could have been granted citizenship but not applied for a passport. The Albanian imprisonment rate was 232.33 per 10,000 people – or one in 50. This was calculated based on the census data showing 68,672 foreign-born Albanians lived in the UK. Excluding the 15,860 without a UK passport gives a total of some 52,000. With 1,227 in jail, it equates to two per cent of Albanians. The original spark for the row was Mr Farage's attack on Mr Rama after the socialist leader criticised post-Brexit Britain. He said Sir Keir Starmer's plan to send failed asylum seekers abroad to hubs in Europe demonstrated that post-Brexit Britain is in 'a very dark place'. Mr Rama said Britain was 'looking for places to dump migrants' – a concept he claimed would have been unthinkable a decade ago.
