Robert Jenrick accuses Zia Yusuf in antisemitic tweet row
Mr Yusuf has apologised for the incident, which comes after an anonymous X user posted a video that appeared to show Mr Yusuf liking a tweet attacking Mr Jenrick's wife, who is Jewish.
One of the team who post to my X account accidentally pressed like on an awful antisemitic tweet earlier today.
I apologise for this.
The post also refers to 'brown savages', and is equally racist against me. Clearly it was not intentional.
The amount of antisemitism and…
— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) July 18, 2025
Since last summer, likes on X have been privatised, so that only the liker and the poster can see them, rather than a wider audience.
In a message posted on X on Friday, Mr Yusuf said: 'One of the team who post to my X account accidentally pressed like on an awful antisemitic tweet earlier today.
'I apologise for this.'
Mr Yusuf said the post in question is 'equally racist against me' and contains reference to 'brown savages'.
I call bullshit.
You've spent the last 48 hours calling me a 'traitor' for not drawing attention to a leaked spreadsheet with our special forces and MI6 officers' names on.
But we're meant to believe this tweet attacking me as a traitor for having a Jewish wife & family was… https://t.co/2vhitrKDCL
— Robert Jenrick (@RobertJenrick) July 18, 2025
'The amount of antisemitism and racism on this platform is spiralling out of control, and I hope that changes soon,' he added.
Mr Jenrick called the apology 'bullshit'.
'The mask has slipped,' he added.
'Likes are private. You thought nobody would ever know. Unfortunately for you, the racist account who posted the tweet and could see the likes exposed you.
Well said, Rob. Well said indeed. https://t.co/y03TsueaDF
— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) July 18, 2025
'Reform should give you the boot.'
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Mr Jenrick's message was 'well said'.
Mr Yusuf is head of Reform's initiative to drive down local public spending, based on the US's department of government efficiency, also known as Doge.
He was given the position after he quit as party chairman.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
What is ‘an authentically conservative position'?
Kemi Badenoch has written to Conservative MPs urging them to 'take an authentically conservative position'. Which is what precisely? Answering the question demands some political context. The Tory governments of the last 15 years had some medium-size successes: Universal Credit, English schools reform, pensions simplification. But the failures were bigger: economic stagnation and uncontrolled immigration – exacerbated by the biggest conflict between two European countries since the Second World War, and the most fatal pandemic since the First. There is a justified sense that the Conservatives, who have exhausted five leaders in under ten years, lost their political compass in government – hence the rise of Reform. Badenoch is scrabbling to recover ground she is losing. What does it look like? National conservatives, libertarians, Thatcher nostalgics, authoritarians, One Nationers, populists – all claim to represent real conservatism. There are no tablets of stone, with a definition carved into them, to give an incontestable verdict. But over time, conservatism has tended to stress three indispensables. First, it's anti-utopian. It says that history shows attempts to build heaven on earth, based on race or class supremacy – Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia – end instead in hell: in holocausts, the slaughter of innocents, Holodomor and injustices worse than they replace. Second, it's local – or, rather, national. A French conservative is likely to be republican, interventionist and have a high view of the state's role. A British one will be monarchist, tend to prefer markets to planning and be increasingly suspicious of two-tier state power. The two may well find each other strangers. That said, there is rough agreement internationally on two fundamentals: social order and economic freedom, and that the two are self-reinforcing. Third – and most controversially, given our times – conservatism in Britain is bound up with institutions: monarchy, Parliament, rule of law, limited government, a free media. If they go wrong, revolutionaries try to smash them. Conservatives work instead to reform them, because institutions are a kind of collective, embodied memory. And without memory, you can't learn. Indeed, you have no identity. So far, so obvious. But how does that world-view translate into policy? I wrestled with the question in a recent essay for Policy Exchange – the Future of the Right – and found quickly that the old conservative classics are the best: boosting enterprise, particularly small business. Controlling immigration. Helping families, which the state treats as a cash cow. Boosting our defence and security in a dangerous world. Getting value for money from our public services. (Plainly, the NHS can't carry on as it is.) This is all very well. But – in a country with an ageing population, low growth, broken border control, balkanised cities and civil discontent – it sounds, and perhaps is, abstracted. Many conservatives are giving up on not just the Conservatives but politics. To opt for Reform is, above all, a cry of protest – and rage. If the question 50 years ago, when Margaret Thatcher led the Opposition, was what – what should conservatives do in government? – the question now is how: how can a government of the Right, however constituted, fulfil a conservative, democratic mandate amidst a broken, social democratic state? How would a Prime Minister Badenoch – or Nigel Farage, for that matter – respond to activist judges, bust procurement, politicised civil servants, mass strikes, Islamist demands for blasphemy laws, out-of-date agreements like the Refugee Convention, lawfare? Some conservatives have given up altogether, retreating to Substack and declaring the Blob unbeatable. It isn't. The body responsible for righting these wrongs is Parliament. Under the terms of our constitution, it makes the law, and all must ultimately bend to its will – judges, securocrats and mandarins alike – because it represents the people. But Parliament in general, and the Commons in particular, is in a very bad way. The latter has three main functions. To debate, consider legislation and provide ministers. It does none of them well. Debate is curtailed. Legislation is poorly drafted and scrutinised. Ministers are all too often not up to the job. Why? The shorthand answer is that the political parties are, increasingly, selecting parliamentary candidates for other purposes. The voter-driven fashion is to select energetic campaigners who will be committed constituency champions. That's great for individual seats. But not for the country as a whole – because sparky local campaigners don't always make efficient ministers or diligent legislators. Fifty years ago, the plan called Stepping Stones helped to pave the way for the Thatcher governments' programme of trade union reform. A Badenoch or Farage administration needs a modernised equivalent – a strategy not so much for what a conservative government would deliver but how it would deliver it. The signs are that the Conservative leader understands this. Hence the leadership campaign document to which she contributed a foreword – Rise of the Bureaucratic Class. Part of the answer to speeding its fall may lie in her own hands. 'I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else,' Oliver Cromwell once wrote. The key to finding effective MPs is less technical ability than belief. They need stars to navigate by – enterprise, a smaller state, border control, defence, and understanding the difference between Islam, a great religion, and Islamism, a politicised and extreme ideology. Badenoch, and Farage for that matter, need the equivalents of Cromwell's captains in the Commons. As the Conservatives select candidates for the next election, the means of improving Parliament lies partly in her hands.
Metro
4 hours ago
- Metro
Labour's love lost in less than a year but will electoral reform rescue it?
In MetroTalk: Readers discuss Labour leaders, the left-wing, mass migration and the wealth tax debate (Picture:) Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments. Is your spiritual home sturdy? Reader comments on Farage, Corbyn and Starmer Brian Dooley (MetroTalk, Wed) thinks Jeremy Corbyn's new political party should be the spiritual home of Labour supporters because Sir Keir Starmer has abandoned core Labour values. If only! Starmer ran to be Labour leader on left-of-centre policies and then understandably abandoned them to win last year's general election. Then, inexplicably, he forgot why he had won and reverted to comfort-zone, left-of-centre policies that plunged the government into a serious poll dive that shows no sign of being reversed. Immigration control, law and order, economic growth, NHS reform… policies very popular with the electorate have all collapsed in less than a year. Instead, out-of-touch, left-of-centre backbenchers bully the prime minister to maintain a bloated welfare state that is a magnet for migrants. No wonder Nigel Farage is so popular. Brian, the present Labour Party is indeed your spiritual home… until it is swept away in a few years' time – something that has happened in practically every country in Europe. Chris Shepherd, London Left-wing and centre-left vote to be split four ways? This reader says Corbyn would have less momentum if Labour offered concession to the left-wing(Picture:) I couldn't agree more with James Freeman (MetroTalk, Tue) that if Labour were to offer any sort of concession to the left wing of the party then Corbyn's party wouldn't have as much momentum. To reduce the threat posed by Reform UK, we also need proportional representation (PR). Under first past the post (FPTP), there is a danger the left-wing and centre-left vote will be split between Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens and Corbyn's party, while the right-wing vote is largely united behind Reform UK. Reform could win an overall majority with just 30 per cent of the popular vote under FPTP – but this could not happen under PR. Alan Yearsley, Sheffield Anti-immigrant, anti-immigration or pro-borders? Reader debates Some politicians and pro-immigration activists call their opponents 'anti-immigrant' protesters. Got a question about UK politics? Send in yours and Metro's Senior Politics Reporter Craig Munro will answer it in an upcoming edition of our weekly politics newsletter. Email alrightgov@ or submit your question here. Maybe the protesters are not so much opposing immigrants – maybe they are opposing the government policies that have encouraged mass immigration? So, why not call them anti-immigration protesters? Or again, perhaps it would be more accurate to call them pro-borders protesters? Some of the pro-immigration activists carry banners calling for 'No borders, no nations'. Will Podmore, London 'Trying to nail down jelly', reader talks wealth tax This reader says wealth tax would be 'impossible to administer' (Picture:) Rob Slater (MetroTalk, Tue) asks why chancellor Rachel Reeves has ruled out introducing a wealth tax. The answer is simple – it's impossible to administer, as other countries have found. How do you put a value on works of art, fine wines, vintage cars, property or companies owned by individuals, to give just a few examples? What's to stop people who live here moving their assets to another country? How many civil servants would you need to assess values – if indeed you could? How many court cases would be brought by those who feel their assets have been overvalued? It's like trying to nail down jelly. The big mistake this government made was in promising not to increase those taxes that make up two-thirds of the total tax income – income tax, national insurance and VAT. If we don't want to pay more tax then we have to expect cuts to public services. It's as simple as that. John Daniels, Redhill Reader says Reform can't solve emigration when the party includes many ex-Tories responsible for mass migration? In her analysis of the causes of mass immigration, Helen (MetroTalk, Tue) ignores the fact large numbers of migrants don't come from countries with war or disaster but the EU and India etc. She glossed over the fact many who do come from problem countries go through safe countries to get here. Helen ignored the impact on the country of over-population (in the 1970s people were urged to stop having children as the then much smaller population was considered unsustainable). She also ignored the fact not only are we becoming 'an island of strangers' – in the words of Starmer, albeit words he now regrets – but of enemies as per the under-reported conflict between Muslims and Hindus. Helen is right about the terrible conditions driving some to emigrate but as to Reform claiming to being the solution, the party contains many ex-Tories responsible for much of the mass migration. Reform is in favour of increasing the wealth disparity between rich and poor, probably increasing the drive for immigration. Mark, via email At what age can you be rugby tackled to the floor for breaking the law? This reader saysthat if they're allowed to vote, they're old enough to face consequences for stealing(Picture: Getty Images) The other night I watched two teenagers walk out of my local superstore with a rucksack full of shopping they had not paid for. The security guard tried to stop them but they just casually walked past him. He told me they did it all the time because they know he can't touch them. If the government considers them old enough to vote then surely they are of the age where they can be rugby-tackled to the floor for breaking the law. Gareth, London Reader suggests substance testing for those on benefits with mental health issues Why doesn't the Department for Work and Pensions introduce drug and alcohol testing for those who receive benefits and claim to have mental health issues? Very often I see people on the street smoking marijuana or with a can of beer. It's easy to see what kind of state they are in and it's very dangerous. These individuals should be receiving medical care and food, travel and rent vouchers, not money or benefits. If they refuse, they should be disqualified and prosecuted. Val, Broxbourne Arrow MORE: KöD's signature three-course menu for only £39.50: 10 unmissable Time Out deals Arrow MORE: I'll sleep soundly through the next heatwave thanks to this game-changing item from Oodie Arrow MORE: Former UFC fighter Conor McGregor loses appeal for civil rape case
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
John Swinney issues 'freedom of speech' warning at Festival
Mr Swinney was speaking at the Edinburgh International Festival's headquarters days after Jewish performers claimed their Fringe shows had been cancelled by venues who cited safety concerns raised by staff. Read more: The First Minister, who praised the 'glorious diversity' of Scotland in his speech at The Hub venue, stressed the importance of performers having the ability to 'challenge us, to ask us tough questions, and to force us to look at things from different perspectives.' He added: 'Culture that helps us to understand ourselves, to understand each other and to understand the world around about us.' Mr Swinney, who said he wanted to ensure Scotland was a country of 'robust debate and inquiry,' later launched a new defence of Edinburgh-based investment firm Baillie Gifford, one of the key corporate backers of both the EIF and the Fringe. Pro-Palestine campaigners have called for the both events to sever their links with the firm, which is said to have more than £60m worth of investments in a defence giant which has worked with state-owned arms companies in Israel. In his speech, Mr Swinney admitted global conflict was 'redrawing the world order', and said years of economic stagnation and austerity in the UK had left people disillusioned and alienated, and expression concern at how new technology had left people 'much more exposed to disinformation and harmful material.' He added: 'I want to ensure that Scotland's culture sector continues to bring people together for many generations to come. 'I know that, just like the government, this sector has faced significant and prolonged financial pressures. 'You've been squeezed by rising costs, by new restrictions on the freedom of movement in Europe, by job losses during the pandemic and too many other challenges to mention. I know also that freedom of expression is under greater and greater attack, both at home and around the world. 'I want to ensure that Scotland – the birthplace of the enlightenment – remains a country of robust debate and inquiry. 'I firmly believe that art and culture must be able to challenge us, to ask us tough questions, and to force us to look at things from different perspectives. 'And yes, it must at times be allowed to shock and to offend us. It can also heal us. So let me be absolutely clear – as First Minister I will always protect freedom of speech in our country. 'It is not the First Minister's job to tell you what to create – nor would I ever seek to do so.' Mr Swinney was later asked about controversy over the cancellation of Fringe shows by Jewish performers Rachel Creeger and Philip Simon, and the renewed calls for Baillie Gifford to be dropped by festivals. He said: "What I make a pitch for is an atmosphere of tolerance and respect for other people's opinions. If we all have respect for each other's opinions then we will be able to enable everyone to express their opinions. "I believe in freedom of speech and that we should be tolerant of others. "I feel our society is healthier where we have an expression of views respectively and courteously, so all of us are able to do so on all subjects, but particularly on the issues of the greatest sensitivity. "I want there to be freedom of expression and I want people to be able to air their views. "Some of the ability to do that and the creation of opportunities to do so comes through the sponsorship that is offered by organisations like Baillie Gifford. "My view hasn't changed from what I said before. I think Baillie Gifford has an important contribution to make as one organisation to the offer of philanthropic support for the arts."
