Robert Jenrick accused Rachel Reeves of an “appalling lack of judgement” over her alleged links to a “fanatic who has repeatedly shown that he holds shocking views”.
It came as Reform’s Treasury spokesman gave a joint press conference this morning with Nigel Farage.
He said: “This is an appalling lack of judgement from Rachel Reeves. She has become very close to a local ‘community leader’ in Leeds in order to save her own political skin. But this man is a fanatic who has repeatedly shown that he holds shocking views.
“Reeves says she is this man’s friend, while he’s said he only votes for her if she does what he demands.
“This comes at a time of renewed concern about sectarian politics seeping into our national life. We don’t want foreign issues and sectarian politics to dictate what happens in our parliament. Reeves must answer for this and explain why she has become so close to this man.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said: “These abhorrent views are clearly not shared by the Chancellor. She was not aware of these allegations.”
Reform Exposes ‘Shocking Scandal’ About Rachel Reeves – ‘It’s Appalling’
Reform UK has launched a fierce attack on Chancellor Rachel Reeves over her relationship with a Labour activist in Leeds, with Robert Jenrick accusing her of displaying what he described as an “appalling” lack of judgement.
The controversy centres on Arshad Khatana, a Labour activist and senior figure within the Leeds Council of Mosques. Reform has highlighted Khatana’s alleged social-media activity and his association with individuals and organisations in an attempt to question Reeves’s judgement and her relationship with community representatives in her Leeds constituency.
The allegations triggered an immediate political response. Labour administratively suspended Khatana pending an investigation, while the party said that the views attributed to him were not shared by Reeves and that the Chancellor had not been aware of the allegations.
For Reform, however, the issue goes beyond one individual.
Jenrick has argued that Reeves needs to explain why she maintained a relationship with Khatana and why she had appeared with him repeatedly over a number of years.
The dispute has therefore become another political confrontation between Reform and Labour over community politics, antisemitism, religious extremism and the standards expected of public figures.
The person at the centre of the dispute
Khatana has been involved in community and mosque activities in Leeds and was a Labour member in Reeves’s constituency.
According to reports, Reeves and Khatana have been photographed together on numerous occasions since 2010. Reform has highlighted at least 27 photographs and has also pointed to Reeves describing him as a friend and visiting his home.
Those facts are not, by themselves, evidence that Reeves shared any of Khatana’s alleged views.
Reeves’s political role in Leeds has involved regular contact with community organisations and religious representatives. Constituency MPs routinely meet people from a wide variety of organisations, and appearing in photographs with a community representative does not necessarily establish agreement with everything that person has said or done.
That distinction has become central to Labour’s response.
A Labour spokesperson said the views attributed to Khatana were “clearly not shared” by Reeves and that she was unaware of the allegations.
What Reform has alleged
Jenrick presented a series of allegations about Khatana’s online activity.
Among them were claims that Khatana had shared material relating to the Pakistani military that featured individuals associated with organisations proscribed as terrorist groups in the United Kingdom.
Reform also accused him of sharing conspiracy theories involving the September 11 attacks and antisemitic material, as well as making statements about people who criticised Islam.
These are serious allegations, and Reform used them to argue that Reeves should explain the extent and nature of her relationship with Khatana.
Jenrick described the situation as evidence of poor judgement and argued that the Chancellor had become too closely associated with someone whom Reform characterised as holding deeply offensive views.
However, it is important to distinguish between an allegation about an individual’s conduct and an established finding against that individual.
At the time of the political controversy, Labour’s response was to suspend Khatana pending investigation rather than announce that the allegations had been conclusively established.
Khatana has also rejected the characterisation of him as an extremist or antisemite, according to reporting on the controversy.
Why Rachel Reeves has become involved
The political focus on Reeves comes from the length and visibility of her relationship with Khatana.
Reform argues that there is a significant difference between a politician meeting a community representative once and maintaining a relationship over many years.
Jenrick has repeatedly stressed that Reeves was photographed with Khatana on numerous occasions and that the relationship extended beyond formal constituency meetings.
That is why Reform has framed the controversy as a question of judgement rather than simply a disagreement about social-media posts.
The party’s argument is essentially that senior politicians have a responsibility to understand the people with whom they associate, particularly when those individuals are described as influential community figures.
Labour’s counterargument is that Reeves was unaware of the alleged material and should not be held responsible for statements she did not make.
The disagreement therefore revolves around the boundary between political association and political responsibility.
Reform’s own problem in the controversy
The story quickly became more complicated for Farage because a photograph emerged showing the Reform leader meeting Khatana himself.
The photograph was taken in 2013, when Farage was leader of UKIP, during an interfaith event at the Ghousia Mosque in Leeds.
Labour seized on the photograph and accused Farage of hypocrisy for attacking Reeves over her association with Khatana while having met him himself.
Farage rejected the comparison.
He said the meeting was a single encounter at a large interfaith event where he would have met many people. He argued that there was a fundamental difference between being photographed with someone once and maintaining a long-term relationship with that person.
That response illustrates the difficulty Reform faces in turning the controversy into a straightforward attack on Labour.
The photograph does not establish that Farage agreed with any views allegedly expressed by Khatana. Equally, Reeves’s photographs with Khatana do not establish that she agreed with those alleged views.
The political dispute is therefore about the nature and extent of the relationships, rather than what can be inferred from a photograph alone.
Labour takes action
One of the clearest developments was Labour’s decision to suspend Khatana administratively pending an investigation.
That move allowed the party to distance itself from the allegations while making clear that it would examine the claims.
Labour also argued that Reeves should not be personally associated with allegations concerning someone whose views she says she did not know about.
The party pointed to the distinction between the Chancellor’s constituency work and the personal opinions of people she may encounter in that capacity.
The controversy nevertheless creates political pressure because Reeves is not an ordinary backbench MP. As Chancellor, her public associations receive considerably more scrutiny.
Reform has consequently attempted to turn the dispute into a wider argument about Labour’s approach to community politics and the boundaries of political engagement.
The wider debate about community representation
The controversy touches on a much broader question in British politics: how elected representatives should engage with religious and community organisations.
MPs frequently meet representatives from faith groups, charities, businesses, campaign organisations and local associations.
Such meetings can be part of constituency representation and community engagement.
But politicians can also face questions when an individual they have worked with becomes the subject of serious allegations.
The central issue is then whether the politician knew about the alleged conduct, whether they endorsed it and whether they should have taken action after becoming aware of it.
In Reeves’s case, Labour’s stated position is that she was unaware of the allegations and does not share the views attributed to Khatana.
That does not prevent political opponents from questioning her judgement, but it does mean that any conclusion about her personal beliefs would go beyond the evidence presented in the dispute.
Jenrick’s political attack
For Jenrick, the controversy provided an opportunity to put Reeves’s political judgement under the spotlight.
As Reform’s Treasury spokesman, he normally attacks the Chancellor over taxation, public spending, economic growth and government finances.
This confrontation moves the argument into a different area.
Jenrick has attempted to connect Reeves’s relationship with Khatana to broader concerns about sectarian politics and the influence of community organisations on British political parties.
Those claims are part of Reform’s political argument rather than an established finding that Reeves’s economic or parliamentary decisions were influenced by Khatana.
The distinction is important because the available reporting establishes a relationship and a series of allegations, but does not establish that Khatana dictated government policy or that Reeves adopted the views attributed to him.
A difficult issue for both parties
The controversy also demonstrates how quickly attacks between political parties can become complicated by their own records.
Reform’s criticism of Reeves was followed almost immediately by the discovery that Farage had previously met Khatana.
Labour used that fact to challenge Reform’s credibility, while Reform responded that the circumstances were completely different.
Neither side’s political argument automatically establishes the underlying allegations.
Instead, several separate questions need to be considered: what Khatana actually said or shared, whether those claims can be independently established, what Reeves knew at the time, and what responsibility an elected representative has for the conduct of someone they meet through constituency or community work.
Those questions are different from the political rhetoric surrounding the dispute.
What happens next
The immediate issue is the investigation into Khatana following his suspension from Labour.
Its outcome could determine whether the controversy develops further or gradually disappears from the political agenda.
For Reform, the dispute is another opportunity to challenge Labour over questions of political judgement and community relations.
For Labour, the priority is to separate Reeves from the allegations while demonstrating that the party takes concerns about offensive or extremist material seriously.
The episode also illustrates the increasingly confrontational nature of British politics, where relationships between politicians and community figures can rapidly become national political controversies.
Jenrick has described the situation as “appalling”, while Reform has presented it as evidence of a serious failure of judgement. Those are political assessments rather than established facts.
What can be established is that Reeves had a longstanding association with Khatana, Reform raised allegations about his conduct, Labour suspended him pending investigation, and Labour stated that Reeves was unaware of the alleged views and did not share them.
The political battle now centres on what those facts mean.
For Reform, they form the basis of a direct challenge to Reeves’s judgement.
For Labour, they demonstrate the limits of holding a politician responsible for allegations involving someone she knew through constituency and community engagement.
Until the underlying allegations are fully examined, the controversy remains a political dispute built around competing interpretations of the same relationships.
What happens next will depend largely on the investigation and any further evidence that emerges.