Nigel Farage left the door open to a future in Reform for ITV presenter Rylan Clark after his comments on illegal migration. Clark faced a social media storm after suggesting there was “something wrong” with the way illegal migrants are welcomed into the UK. Asked if there was room for Rylan in Reform as a future Culture Secretary, Mr Farage told the Daily Expresso: “Well, I don’t know!”
He went on: “I thought it was very interesting that he said it. I thought what was even more interesting is how little backlash he’s got. If he’d used that position on an ITV programme like that four or five years ago, there would have been 300,000 signature petition demanding he was sacked, and that hasn’t been the case. So people do know that something needs to be done. And let’s face it, I have been the clearest, most consistent person warning about this. I was going out into the channel in early 2020 filming these shenanigans, saying, wake up, everybody, this is happening.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Clark made the comments during an episode of This Morning, starting by saying how doctors and nurses from “other countries” saved his mother Linda’s life when she fell ill earlier this year.
“They’re living a great life, they’re paying into this tax system, they’re helping this country thrive,” he said.
But he said raised concerns about illegal migrants arriving after crossing the Channel on small boats.
“Here’s the iPad. Here’s the NHS in reception of your hotel. Here’s three meals a day. Here’s a games room in the hotel. Have a lovely time and welcome,” he said.
Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage (Image: Jonathan Buckmaster)
Mr Farage was speaking to the Daily Expresso, a new weekday show launching today on YouTube, Apple and Spotify.
It is hosted by Express Assistant Editor JJ Anisiobi with regular co-hosts, including our columnists Carole Malone and Esther McVey, along with Belinda de Lucy, a former Brexit Party MEP.
Watch The Daily Expresso every weekday at 5pm on our YouTube channel
Nigel Farage breaks silence on Rylan Clark’s future in Reform with four-word verdict
Nigel Farage has given his verdict on the possibility of Rylan Clark joining Reform UK after the television presenter sparked a major political debate with his comments about immigration and small-boat crossings.
The Reform leader was asked whether there could be a future role for Clark inside his party after the presenter publicly criticised aspects of Britain’s approach to illegal migration.
Farage’s response was strikingly brief: “Well, I don’t know!”
The four-word answer did not amount to an invitation for Clark to join Reform, nor did it confirm that the television presenter was considering a political career. Instead, Farage used the opportunity to argue that Clark’s comments reflected a wider change in the way immigration was being discussed in Britain.
The exchange came after Clark caused controversy during an edition of ITV’s This Morning, where he discussed immigration, asylum seekers and the Channel crossings.
Rylan Clark’s comments
Clark’s intervention attracted attention because he did not present himself as opposed to immigration generally.
During the discussion, he specifically praised migrants working in Britain, pointing to doctors and nurses from other countries who had helped his family.
He said Britain had been “built on immigration” and highlighted the contribution of people who work, pay taxes and provide services such as healthcare.
His criticism was directed instead at the way he believed people arriving through irregular Channel routes were being accommodated.
Clark questioned the use of hotels for asylum seekers and described what he believed was a contrast between the support available to newly arrived asylum seekers and the difficulties faced by homeless people, veterans and others struggling in Britain.
He also questioned why a British citizen could face problems entering the country without the appropriate travel documents while someone arriving by small boat could subsequently be taken into government accommodation.
Those comments produced an immediate reaction on social media.
Some viewers agreed with Clark’s concerns about irregular migration and asylum accommodation.
Others accused him of repeating misleading claims or language that they considered harmful to migrants.
Clark subsequently attempted to clarify his position.
“You can be pro immigration and against illegal routes”
Following the backlash, Clark took to social media to argue that people were trying to place him into political categories too quickly.
His central message was that supporting immigration did not necessarily mean supporting every immigration route.
“You can be pro immigration and against illegal routes,” he wrote.
He also urged people to stop putting everyone “in a box” and called for more discussion rather than social-media arguments.
That clarification was significant because the original comments had been interpreted in very different ways.
Some saw Clark as echoing concerns usually associated with Conservative or Reform voters.
Others argued that criticising irregular migration did not automatically place him on the political right.
The distinction is important.
Support for controlled immigration, concern about small boats and support for legal migration can coexist within a range of political positions.
Farage sees a wider change
Farage’s response focused less on whether Clark should actually become a Reform politician and more on what Clark’s comments appeared to represent.
According to reporting of Farage’s remarks, the Reform leader said he found Clark’s comments “very interesting” and was struck by the limited scale of the backlash compared with what he believed would have happened several years earlier.
Farage argued that the political environment around immigration had changed.
His broader point was that concerns about illegal migration were no longer confined to people who traditionally supported Reform or its predecessor movements.
That interpretation is politically useful for Farage because Reform has attempted to broaden its appeal beyond its traditional base.
If people who are not normally associated with Reform begin expressing concerns about Channel crossings, the party can argue that the issue has become part of a wider national conversation.
But Clark himself did not announce support for Reform.
That distinction should not be lost.
A potential Culture Secretary?
The question put to Farage reportedly concerned whether there could be a future role for Clark in Reform, including the possibility of becoming Culture Secretary.
Farage’s answer — “Well, I don’t know!” — was deliberately non-committal.
There was no announcement of a political appointment.
There was also no indication from Clark that he was seeking elected office or preparing to join the party.
The headline therefore goes further than the available evidence if it is interpreted as suggesting that Clark is already on his way into Reform.
What Farage actually did was leave the question open while using Clark’s intervention to reinforce his argument that attitudes towards immigration were changing.
Why Rylan’s comments mattered to Reform
The significance of the episode lies partly in Clark’s public profile.
He is primarily known as a television and radio presenter rather than a professional politician.
His comments therefore attracted attention precisely because they came from someone who is not normally identified with Westminster political campaigning.
That made Farage’s response particularly useful politically.
Rather than dismissing Clark, Farage welcomed the fact that a mainstream television personality had raised questions about irregular migration.
Reform has spent years arguing that immigration should be discussed more openly.
Clark’s intervention allowed Farage to argue that the subject was increasingly being discussed by people outside Reform’s normal political circles.
The difference between asylum and illegal immigration
The debate also exposed a recurring problem in British political discussions about migration: the terms used to describe people arriving by small boats.
Clark and Farage both referred to illegal migration, but the legal position is more complicated.
People who arrive in Britain irregularly can make asylum claims, and the fact that someone entered the country without prior permission does not automatically determine whether their protection claim is valid.
The government therefore has to distinguish between the method of arrival and the outcome of an asylum application.
This distinction frequently becomes blurred in political debate.
Reform’s argument is that the Channel route itself represents a failure of border control.
Critics of tougher policies argue that people fleeing persecution can have legitimate asylum claims regardless of how they arrive.
The policy debate consequently involves two separate questions: how Britain should control irregular entry and how it should process claims for international protection.
Farage’s wider immigration strategy
The exchange took place shortly after Farage announced Reform’s proposal to remove hundreds of thousands of people in its first parliamentary term if the party entered government.
The Independent reported that Farage had said Reform would seek to remove 600,000 people under its proposed mass-deportation programme. The party subsequently faced questions about how such a policy would work, including what categories of people would initially be targeted.
That proposal provided the immediate political background to Clark’s remarks.
His criticism of the treatment of people arriving by small boats was therefore inevitably compared with Reform’s much tougher immigration platform.
Yet Clark did not endorse the Reform programme.
His own comments were more limited: he expressed support for legal immigration while questioning the government’s handling of irregular arrivals.
That is a significantly different position from formally supporting a party’s entire immigration programme.
A changing political conversation
Farage’s reaction also highlights how immigration has moved beyond traditional party boundaries.
Public attitudes towards migration are not uniform.
Someone can support legal migration while opposing irregular entry.
Someone can support asylum protections while also believing that the government should remove people whose claims have been rejected.
Someone can believe that Britain needs lower migration overall while still supporting particular forms of immigration.
Clark’s comments illustrate that complexity.
His follow-up statement was essentially an attempt to make precisely this distinction.
Rather than accepting a simple political label, he argued that people could hold apparently contrasting positions simultaneously.
Could Rylan really enter politics?
For now, there is no evidence that Clark is preparing to join Reform.
His career remains primarily in television and radio, and his comments on This Morning were made in the context of a live discussion rather than as part of a political campaign.
Farage’s four-word response should therefore be treated as an open-ended answer rather than a political announcement.
Nevertheless, the episode demonstrates how quickly a celebrity’s comments on immigration can become part of a national political debate.
It also shows how Reform is attempting to use the wider discussion around Channel crossings to argue that its concerns are increasingly shared beyond its own supporters.
The political significance
The real significance of the Farage-Clark exchange may therefore have less to do with whether Rylan Clark ever joins Reform and more to do with the changing language surrounding immigration.
Farage saw an opportunity to highlight a television presenter publicly questioning aspects of Britain’s asylum system.
Clark, meanwhile, insisted that his position was more nuanced than the reactions to his original comments suggested.
The disagreement demonstrates how difficult it has become to discuss immigration without the conversation quickly becoming politically polarised.
For Reform, the episode provides an example of a public figure outside conventional party politics expressing concerns about irregular migration.
For Clark, the controversy illustrates the difficulty of discussing immigration while maintaining distinctions between legal migration, asylum and irregular entry.
And for the wider British debate, it highlights the importance of separating those different issues rather than treating them as one question.
Farage’s four-word verdict leaves the door open
Nigel Farage’s “Well, I don’t know!” was hardly a formal recruitment announcement.
But it was enough to keep the speculation alive.
Clark has not announced that he wants to join Reform, and there is no confirmed political role for him within the party.
What has been established is that his comments on This Morning attracted significant attention, that he subsequently defended the distinction between supporting immigration and opposing irregular routes, and that Farage viewed the intervention as evidence of a changing political conversation.
The episode therefore leaves an intriguing question rather than an answer.
Could Rylan Clark eventually become involved in politics?
At present, that remains speculation.
What is clear is that his comments have given Farage another opportunity to argue that concerns about Britain’s migration system are no longer confined to the political circles traditionally associated with Reform.
And with immigration continuing to occupy a central position in Britain’s political debate, even an off-the-cuff television discussion can quickly become part of the much larger argument over how the country should manage its borders, asylum system and legal migration routes.