Zia Yusuf returns to Reform UK just 48 hours after quitting as chairman
The 38-year-old businessman said his decision to stand down had been the result of 'exhaustion' and working for 11 months 'without a day off'.
Party leader Nigel Farage, speaking to the Sunday Times newspaper alongside Mr Yusuf, said the former chairman will now effectively be doing 'four jobs', though his title has not yet been decided.
He will lead Reform's plans to cut public spending – the so-called 'UK Doge', based on the US Department of Government Efficiency which was led by tech billionaire Elon Musk.
The ex-chairman will also take part in policymaking, fundraising and media appearances.
Mr Yusuf said he was quitting Reform following the latest in a series of internal rows, in which he described a question to the Prime Minister concerning a ban on burkas from his party's newest MP as 'dumb'.
Announcing his resignation on Thursday afternoon, he said: 'I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office.'
Mr Yusuf said he had been left feeling undervalued by some in the party and drained after being subjected to relentless racist abuse on X, and made the comments in 'error'.
'I spoke to Nigel and said I don't mind saying I made an error. It was a function of exhaustion,' he said.
Asked about the row over talk of banning the burka, Mr Yusuf said he 'certainly did not resign because I have any strong views about the burqa itself' but felt blindsided by Sarah Pochin's question to Sir Keir Starmer.
He said that 'if there were a vote and I was in parliament, I would probably vote to ban it actually' but that 'philosophically I am always a bit uneasy about banning things which, for example, would be unconstitutional in the United States, which such a ban no doubt would be'.
Reform will hope the show of unity between Mr Farage and the former chairman is enough to quell concerns about internal personality clashes, amid recent scrutiny of the leader's fallings out with former allies.
It follows the suspension of MP Rupert Lowe from the party following complaints about his conduct, which he denied, and suggested the leader had a tendency to row with colleagues he felt threatened by.
Labour branded Mr Yusuf's return a 'humiliating hokey-cokey' and said working people could not afford 'the risk of economic chaos with Reform UK'.
Party chairwoman Ellie Reeves said: 'Reform's revolving door shows that the party is all about one person – Nigel Farage.
'Zia Yusuf's humiliating hokey-cokey is laughable but there is nothing funny about Farage's £80 billion in unfunded commitments.
'His reckless plan is Liz Truss's disastrous mini-budget on steroids and would spark economic chaos that increases bills and mortgages.
'Working people simply can't afford the risk of economic chaos with Reform UK.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
a few seconds ago
- The Herald Scotland
Ten years to make indy the settled will: Can the SNP do it?
That was the idea, anyway. But the rest is now history. The rapid demise of the Labour Party since entering government at Westminster has all but demolished Mr Sarwar's prospects of becoming First Minister. Yes, he is extremely engaging and persuasive, but he is pushing water uphill with a rake; he's doing it ably and admirably, but it's still up a hill and he still has a rake. Something else has happened, too – Nigel Farage. The rise and rise of Reform UK increasingly looks like a trend which will become a norm. As I wrote on these pages last week, every hundred years or so there is an enduring change in UK politics, with one party being replaced by another; we are overdue for a seismic event of this type, and Mr Farage's Reform may well be the trigger. Read more by Andy Maciver Mr Swinney and his indispensable deputy Kate Forbes, then, are presented with opportunities that, in their wildest dreams, they never thought they would have. An opportunity to win another election for the SNP, yes. That is what Labour's demise offers them. Mr Swinney and Ms Forbes have altered the perception of the SNP and the Scottish Government in the eyes of crucial, middling floating voters. They are doing enough – just – to win an election in which there is now no major competition. But that is a short-term goal compared with the opportunity presented by the rise of Mr Farage; the opportunity to cement independence as the settled will of Scotland. Mr Swinney and Ms Forbes have, in my reading, a 10-year window during which independence sentiment could rise from the 45-50 per cent on which it has stuck for the last decade, to more like 55-60-65 per cent, clearly and consistently. There are two factors which need to be present for that inexorable rise to happen. The first is at Westminster. Behind the drama of the civil war amongst Labour's MPs is a far more substantial problem. The demise of Labour's welfare reforms will have a profound impact on our ability as a country to grow. Our welfare bill is already around one third of government expenditure, and because Britain has a globally unique problem with the volume of benefits we pay to working age people, that bill will go up and up and up until we accept the economic, social and moral failure which it represents. Inextricably linked to the welfare bill is the health bill. The two together are already over half of all expenditure. The demographics of an ageing population, combined with the increasing health needs of a non-working working-age population, should make us want to put our heads in our hands. In theory, Wes Streeting, the great reforming hope of this Labour government, is the antidote to this. But the same turkeys who voted to abolish Christmas in the welfare rebellion will almost inevitably vote to abolish Christmas again when the government attempts to do anything vaguely radical to reform the failed health service. Oh, and there is next-to-no economic growth and, according to our official forecasters, no real prospect of it anytime soon. Britain is bust. That in itself, though, is probably not enough for independence to become the settled will; or, at least, it shouldn't be. The second is at Holyrood. There will always be a section of the electorate in Scotland who would vote for independence no matter what, and another section who would vote against independence no matter what. Each segment is probably around one-third of the voters. They make a loyal, largely emotional decision, and nothing will ever change it. Fine. But that leaves around one-third of the population who are capable of changing their minds depending on the circumstances. These are people who are unlikely to be members of a political party. They don't have a flag in their garden or a bumper sticker on their car. They probably work. They feel invested in the success of their country. And they are most likely prepared to vote for independence if it looks as though the country they are voting to be a part of has better prospects for them and their families than the country they are leaving behind. Will the SNP be able to solve the NHS problem? (Image: PA) In essence, that's why these people voted No in 2014; the devil they knew was better than the devil they didn't, because the Yes campaign failed to convince them that there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Mr Swinney and Ms Forbes are likely to have at least another six years in government, during which a General Election at Westminster is likely to create chaos and rage. This will be their opportunity to show, firstly, that Scotland is stable but, more importantly, that Scotland is going places. They would argue publicly, I am sure, that they are already doing this, but they are not. The Scottish Government's tendency is more akin to the Labour rebels than to the Labour Government. They reject genuine reform, whether that be of welfare or of public services. They continue to deprioritise economic growth in deed if not in word. And the tendency remains to point the finger at Westminster for those things they cannot do, rather than showing Scotland what they can do with the power they have. Scotland's health service is in tatters, just like England's. No better. Our education system is clearly and demonstrably worse than in England, as is our transport infrastructure. Our housing shortage is much the same. Our poor economic growth prospects are much the same. This is not what independence is made of. Mr Swinney and Ms Forbes should spend the next decade showing us what we're missing. Andy Maciver is Founding Director of Message Matters, and co-host of the Holyrood Sources podcast
Telegraph
a minute ago
- Telegraph
Crumbling water industry is damaging Britain's economy, MPs warn
Britain's crumbling water industry is hitting housebuilding and slowing the country's economic growth, MPs have warned. On Friday, MPs on the public accounts committee (Pac) said the sector's failure to build new reservoirs had delayed the construction of thousands of new homes and offices that were urgently needed to boost the UK economy. This includes 7,000 new houses being built in Oxford as well as 50,000 new homes in Cambridge which have been delayed because of a major shortfall in the water supply, the MPs said. Crucially, they added that neither the Government or the Environment Agency (EA) were able to say how many homes had been denied planning permission because of a lack of water pipes and that customers were footing the bill for the failures. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the Pac chairman, said: 'The monumental scale of work required to reverse the fortunes of failing water companies is rivalled only in difficulty by the efforts needed to repair customers' faith in the sector. 'Customers are being expected to shoulder the burden of water companies' failings, without being told why or on what their money will be spent.' Water companies are under intense scrutiny after the debt crisis at Thames Water put renewed focus on how much companies are spending on fixing creaking water infrastructure. According to the Pac, 10 out of Britain's 16 water companies failed to generate enough income last year to cover the interest payments on their debts – leaving them unable to invest more. In two cases over the past two decades, water companies paid out dividends worth more than 100pc of the entire value of company assets, according to the MPs. Ofwat is also blamed for failing to prevent water companies from taking excessive dividends – even as it has flagged concerns about the payouts. The regulator signalled concerns about 10 water companies last year. The water industry must spend nearly £300bn on new infrastructure to avoid looming water shortages – including building 10 new reservoirs – and boost UK economic growth. The investment is urgently required because the UK has failed to build a single new reservoir since the Carsington Water reservoir in Derbyshire – which was opened more than 30 years ago in 1992. The report placed a portion of the blame on the Environment Department's failure to ensure water companies had been building and maintaining the infrastructure needed to avoid looming shortfalls, which are expected to hit 5bn litres a day by 2050. By the end of the year, the MPs recommended that the EA should publish a list of all housing and commercial developments being delayed or blocked. The report comes as Southern Water announced it had doubled the pay of chief executive Lawrence Gosden to £1.4m at the same time as announcing a hosepipe ban for 1m customers. Southern Water, which servers 4.7m customers across Kent, Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, is now the fourth water company to announce a hosepipe ban, alongside Thames Water, Yorkshire Water and South East Water.
Reuters
a minute ago
- Reuters
Hungary's Orban says proposed new budget will 'ruin the EU'
BUDAPEST, July 18 (Reuters) - The European Commission's proposed new budget lacks clear strategic foundations and would ruin the European Union, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban told state radio on Friday. "This budget would ruin the European Union. This budget I believe will not survive even next year, the Commission will either have to withdraw it or the Commission will have to backtrack step by step," Orban said, criticising plans to allocate money to Ukraine and planned changes to farm subsidies.
