EXCLUSIVE: The Reform UK leader, speaking exclusively to the Daily Express, dismissed fears people with racist views were particularly attracted to his party.
Nigel Farage speaks to Essex County Council leader Peter Harris (Image: Will Colebourne/the Press Association)
Nigel Farage slammed the “establishment” for their latest attack on Reform as he claimed Tory members hold worse views. An ITV News investigation found councillors and candidates within Reform UK had used racist language. In one excerpt, black children were referred to as “animals”, while in another a Reform member said his area had become “infested” with Asian families.
But the Reform UK leader, speaking exclusively to the Daily Express, dismissed fears that people with racist views were particularly attracted to his party. And he suggested sending spies into the Tory party.
Mr Farage revealed ITV News “infiltrated” the party’s headquarters, and only “got me telling a joke” and a “press officer using a swear word”. He told the Daily Express: “They wouldn’t do it to anybody else, would they? I mean, they’ve spent a year on this, goodness knows how much money.
“The worst miscreant, whose quotes have been all over the BBC and everywhere, was, of course, a long-term Tory councillor. But he was never followed undercover as a Tory councillor, was he? But he has been in Reform.
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.
“They have met literally hundreds of people. They’ve been to all the by-elections. They’ve spoken to hundreds of people. They’ve tried to provoke conversations, and they’ve managed to find a handful of people who said unpleasant things, which we have acted on already.”
He continued: “The idea that this is somehow a failure of our vetting is absolutely for the birds. You can’t vet what people are going to say in the future. You can’t vet what people say to each other.
“They would not do this to any other party. And it’s yet another example, after Channel 4 and all the rest of it. I mean, this literally is the establishment trying to do everything they can to throw us out of the picture.”
Asked if Reform was attracting the wrong sort of character, Mr Farage said: “Not compared to the Conservative Party, no.
“The worst miscreant was a long-term Conservative. A Kemi supporter.”
Mr Farage said his party vets “much more heavily than other parties”.
Asked how Reform can convince voters it doesn’t have a racism problem, Mr Farage said: “That’s what they’re trying to do. That’s exactly what they – I tell you what, maybe what I’ll do is I’ll commission a team of undercover [operatives], and we’ll go and speak to a thousand Tory councillors. You’ll find worse.
“You’ll find it everywhere.
“You’ll find it in the pub tonight. It’s people, and particularly if they’re provoking conversation. Not everyone’s been to Oxford University. Not everyone’s been to Eton.
“Not everyone expresses themselves in very carefully formulated language. People just say what they blooming-well think.
“The massive investment that is going in to try and discredit an entire political movement on a handful of people here and a handful of people there tells you, frankly, all you need to know.”
The Reform UK leader insisted his party will rise back up through the polls.
Nigel Farage speaks to Daily Express Home Affairs Editor Michael Knowles (Image: STEVE FINN PHOTOGRAPHY)
He said: “This is all just absolute nonsense.
“Think how many MPs have been to prison. Think how many, you know, ex-MPs have done goodness knows what over the years. I mean, the effective Deputy Prime Minister is a convicted fraudster.
“What is more serious? Some bloke representing a small district council who says something that is unpleasant, or the Deputy Prime Minister being a convicted fraudster? It’s about scale.”
Asked how he will convince voters a Reform Government wouldn’t be scandal after scandal, Mr Farage said: “It depends how it’s portrayed. It depends how it’s portrayed.”
He added: “We are with the biggest political party in Britain by membership. We’ve got millions of supporters. You know, I mean you could go down the street now and find someone who says he’s a Reform voter and you find he’s a convicted murderer. Would you judge me by him? I hope not.”
In the run-up to the 2026 local election, Councillor Alan Feeney, the deputy mayor of Solihull, was filmed undercover with Reform local election candidates Jamie Campbell and Chris Whelan.
In one instance, Whelan was filmed talking about a female Reform candidate where he said “‘If she’d have given me a hug, I’d have f****** fingered her”.
When talking about another female Reform candidate, Whelan said: “F*** me, if she was my daughter, it would still be bath night on a Thursday… Time for your bath… I’ll wash you properly this time. Yes. Dirty bastard”.
Feeney also called Asian homeowners “parasites”.
He was caught on camera adding: “I’d be saying no more than 1% of [the] British population can be non-white… you’d need a proper nuclear option, like literally drag them out of their homes, stick them on planes and f*** them off to Pakistan, which you’ll never do in a month of Sundays… You just have to make it a country they don’t want to be in… I mean you’re getting to a point where you ban Muslims from standing from public office”.
Asked by reporters about the investigation during a visit to the North West, Prime Minister Andy Burnham said: “We’ve allowed a poison into our politics in recent years, and it’s time to draw a line under it.
“In fact, I praised the Leader of the Opposition (Kemi Badenoch) in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon, who herself drew a line at her party conference between her party and that type of politics, and we all need to call it out more.
“I’m pleased ITV has done this.
“There is no place for any form of racism, antisemitism, discrimination in British politics, and we all should be relentless in repeating that and taking the firmest possible action.
“And I hope the Reform Party will take immediate and firm action against those who’ve been revealed to be making these abhorrent comments.”
Andy Burnham is finished if pensioners choose to punish Labour.TA
Andy Burnham will be finished before he has scarcely started if his removal of a key element of the triple lock ignites the fury of older Britons. The frightening truth for the Labour Prime Minister is that the nation’s older citizens are roughly twice as likely to vote as young Brits. As Jeremy Corbyn so fatally discovered, you can have legions of young people singing songs of praise to you in mass gatherings, but lose the support of pensioners, and you lose the election.
The next general election may not take place until August 2029, and every day until then, the Conservatives and Reform will be hammering home their message that pensioners will be worse off under Labour while pulling apart every detail of their social care plans. Mr Burnham will soon realise it is easy to win cheers in a Liverpool conference hall; it is far harder to win back the trust of pensioners with clear memories of Rachel Reeves’s assault on their winter fuel allowance and her attempts to draw more families into paying inheritance tax.
For his own survival, the Prime Minister should look at Ipsos’s research into the estimated turnout at the last General Election. Fewer than four in 10 citizens aged 18 to 24 voted (37%). This compares with 64% of those in the 55 to 64 age group who were approaching pension age, and a colossal 73% of those aged 65-plus.
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.
When he talks about a National Care Service, this immediately makes you think about the NHS – a service which provides care free at the point of need and which does not present you with a bill for the use of a bed. But the Government’s own briefing on Mr Burnham’s plans states that the “service will not cover bed and board, for which existing means-tested council contributions will remain”. Families will still have to navigate “payment agreements” to “help eligible people avoid having to sell their home during their lifetime to meet care costs”.
There will be great disappointment if people know that when they pass away, much of the value of their home will disappear in payments for care accrued during their time of frailty. People who worked so hard to own a home want their children and grandchildren to benefit from their greatest asset.
Again, Mr Burnham should look at the Ipsos turnout estimates and shudder. Only 37% of renters took part in the last General Election, compared with six out of 10 mortgage holders and 71% ow homeowners.
Older Britons can be grateful that Mr Burnham has put the issues of social care and pensions so high on the political agenda. The challenge for Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage now is to develop better plans.
The fight is on for the trust of our elder citizens, who proudly use their hard-won votes. This is democracy in action, and Mr Burnham may well regret the day he took his screwdriver to the triple lock.
Andy Burnham Is Finished If Pensioners Choose to Punish Labour
Andy Burnham has placed one of Britain’s most politically sensitive issues at the centre of a growing national controversy: the future of the state pension. By proposing changes to the triple lock from April 2030, the Prime Minister has opened a debate that could test Labour’s relationship with older voters and raise difficult questions about the party’s promises, priorities and long-term economic plans.
For millions of pensioners, the state pension is not an abstract government spending figure. It helps pay for food, heating, electricity and other essentials after decades of work. Any proposal that could change how quickly this income grows is therefore likely to attract intense scrutiny.
Burnham argues that reforming the triple lock would help finance a new National Care Service, providing free personal care for older people based on need rather than ability to pay. Critics, however, say the government risks weakening one form of retirement security before demonstrating that its promised replacement services can be delivered.
The political stakes are substantial. Pensioners represent an important section of the electorate, and their views on pensions, taxation and the cost of living could influence the debate surrounding the next general election. But whether anger over the proposal translates into a significant electoral setback for Labour will depend on how voters respond, what rival parties offer and whether the government can convince the public that its plan is fair.
The Triple Lock Controversy That Has Put Labour Under Pressure
The state pension triple lock guarantees that annual increases are based on whichever is highest among inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5%.
Introduced in 2011, the mechanism was designed to prevent the state pension from falling behind the cost of living and the incomes of working people. It has become a major feature of British retirement policy because it offers pensioners a clear formula for annual increases.
Burnham has promised to maintain the existing system until April 2030. After that, his government proposes to adjust it so the pension rises by at least inflation or 2.5%, while a separate mechanism would maintain its value relative to average earnings over time.
The government says the reform would make pension spending more sustainable and generate savings to help build the National Care Service. Labour has estimated that the changes could save approximately £15 billion annually by the end of the 2030s, rising substantially over subsequent decades.
Those figures are projections, not guaranteed outcomes. The eventual savings would depend on economic conditions and the precise operation of the revised system.
For opponents, the main concern is that removing the automatic link to whichever of three measures is highest could mean smaller increases than under the existing formula in some circumstances.
A pension can continue to rise every year while growing more slowly than it would under an alternative system. Over a long period, differences between the two formulas could accumulate.
That is why the proposal has become such a sensitive political issue. The debate is not simply about whether pension payments will rise, but about how quickly they will grow and whether retirees will retain sufficient purchasing power.
Why Pensioners Could Become a Serious Political Challenge for Labour
Older voters have several reasons to pay close attention to the debate.
Many have spent decades contributing through employment and taxation, and some have organised their retirement around the expectation that the state pension will continue to receive protection against inflation and earnings growth.
For people with substantial private pensions or savings, changes to the state pension formula may be easier to absorb. For those who rely mainly on the state pension, however, the consequences could be more significant.
Household budgets can be particularly difficult to adjust in retirement. A person cannot always increase their working hours to cover a higher electricity bill or rising grocery costs. Nor can everyone draw on savings when unexpected expenses arise.
That makes confidence in pension policy especially important.
If pensioners conclude that Labour has weakened a familiar guarantee without offering adequate protection in return, the government could face criticism from voters who previously supported its approach to retirement security.
However, pensioners are not a single political group. Some may prioritise the triple lock above other policies, while others may place greater importance on access to social care, the NHS, housing costs or the wider economic outlook.
Their eventual response will depend on the full range of issues they consider, rather than one announcement alone.
Burnham’s Defence: A New National Care Service
Burnham has argued that the pension reform is part of a broader attempt to address Britain’s long-running social care problems.
Older people who need assistance with everyday activities can face difficult decisions about how to pay for support. Families may struggle to organise care while managing jobs and other responsibilities, and the costs can become particularly challenging when someone needs help over an extended period.
The proposed National Care Service would aim to provide free personal care according to need rather than ability to pay. The government says the new arrangement would reduce the risk of older people being forced to use a small retirement income to cover personal care charges.
That is a significant policy objective. Pension security is not only about the amount deposited into a bank account each month; it is also about whether people can obtain essential services when they become vulnerable.
Burnham’s argument is that a reformed pension formula could help finance a system that provides greater security in later life.
Yet there are important questions about whether the proposed savings would be sufficient to meet the cost of the service. Some policy analysts have questioned whether the projected savings would fully finance universal social care, particularly during the initial years of implementation.
If additional funding were required, the government might have to consider taxation, further spending reductions or a different timetable.
That uncertainty matters because pensioners will want to know precisely what they are being asked to accept and what they will receive in return.
The Opposition’s Opportunity — and Its Responsibility
The Conservatives and Reform UK have criticised Burnham’s approach, arguing that the government should not weaken pension protections to finance another major spending commitment.
Their criticism provides a political opening, but it also places pressure on opposition parties to explain their own plans.
If a party promises to preserve the existing triple lock, voters are entitled to ask how it would finance the resulting spending commitments while maintaining other public services.
Potential alternatives could include different spending priorities, changes to taxation or targeted support for people with the greatest financial needs. Each option would have costs and consequences that should be made clear.
Nigel Farage has argued that the government should examine other areas of expenditure before changing the triple lock. The Conservatives have also criticised the proposed reform, although their leader, Kemi Badenoch, has acknowledged that reversing legislation and restoring the previous arrangement could be complicated if Labour has already redirected the savings.
That complication demonstrates why the issue cannot be resolved through simple campaign promises.
A credible alternative must explain how the pension system would be financed over the long term, what would happen if inflation or wages changed unexpectedly and how social care would be funded without leaving vulnerable people without support.
Pensioners deserve more than competing assurances. They need to understand the likely financial consequences of each proposal.
Could Labour Face an Electoral Backlash?
The suggestion that Burnham could be finished politically if pensioners punish Labour reflects the seriousness of the dispute, but it remains a political possibility rather than an established outcome.
For Labour, the challenge is to maintain public confidence while asking voters to accept a significant change to a familiar policy.
The government will need to explain why the adjustment is necessary, how the earnings safeguard will operate and what protections will be available to pensioners on low incomes. It will also need to demonstrate that the National Care Service can be delivered on a credible timetable.
If ministers cannot provide convincing answers, the issue could remain a source of criticism throughout the parliamentary term.
If the government does provide clear evidence that the reform is financially sustainable and delivers meaningful improvements to social care, some voters may judge the overall package differently.
The political consequences will also depend on the alternatives available. Pensioners who are unhappy with Labour may consider another party, but they may also weigh up competing positions on taxation, public services, the cost of living and retirement income.
No single policy automatically determines how an entire group will vote.
The next election is therefore likely to involve a wider judgement about Labour’s record and its competing promises, with the triple lock serving as one important part of that assessment.
The Cost-of-Living Question
For many households, the most immediate concern is not the technical structure of pension policy. It is whether retirement income will keep pace with everyday expenses.
Food, heating, housing and transport costs all influence living standards. Even when a pension rises annually, a household may feel worse off if essential expenses rise more quickly or if its eligibility for other forms of support changes.
This is particularly important for pensioners who have limited savings or no substantial private pension.
The government has said its revised system will protect the pension against inflation and maintain its value relative to average earnings over time. The effectiveness of those protections will depend on the details of the mechanism and how it responds to changing economic conditions.
Ministers should explain how the proposal would affect pensioners under different scenarios, including periods when wages rise faster than inflation and periods when prices increase sharply.
Clear examples would help people understand the difference between a guaranteed annual increase and a guarantee that their income will maintain its purchasing power over time.
Without that clarity, the argument risks becoming a battle of slogans rather than an informed discussion about retirement security.