Lee Anderson has called for the killer to be handed the death penalty (Image: Getty)
Reform UK MPs Lee Anderson and Rupert Lowe have both backed the death penalty for Southport murder Axel Rudakubana following his sentencing this afternoon.
18-year-old Rudakubana was handed a life sentence with a minimum term of 52 years by Judge Goose this afternoon.
While the Judge insisted it is a strong enough sentence so that it is unlikely the killer will never see freedom, he was unable to impose a Whole Life Sentence – life without the opportunity of parole – because Rudakubana was under 18 at the time he committed the horrific murders.
Speaking to the Daily Express following the sentencing, two Reform UK MPs have now said the brutal killer’s fate does not go far enough, demanding a return to the death penalty.
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.
Rupert Lowe simply said: “It is my opinion that now is the time for a national debate on the use of the death penalty in exceptional circumstances. This is an exceptional circumstance.”
While the party’s Chief Whip Lee Anderson added: “I have been consistent on the issue of the death penalty.”
“This animal has no right to breath the same air as the rest of us.”
He went further, posting an image of a noose on X with the caption: “This is what is required!”
Mr Justice Goose sentenced the evil Southport killer to a minimum term of 52 years behind bars. The judge said the murderer was likely to die in jail for the “sadistic” murder of the three young girls.
The 18-year-old was sentenced in his absence at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday after indicating he would be “disruptive” if he was present in the courtroom.
Reform MP Rupert Lowe said the trial was an ‘exceptional case’ (Image: Getty)
The last instance of capital punishment in the UK took place in August 1964, when Gwynne Evans and Peter Allen were executed for murder.
The following year, Parliament passed a law suspending the death penalty across Great Britain (this did not extend to Northern Ireland) for all crimes except high treason, “piracy with violence”, arson in royal dockyards, and espionage.
It was only with the Human Rights Act coming into force in 1998 that the death penalty was banned under UK law in all circumstances.
A 2022 YouGov poll has shown that 40 percent of people still support the death penalty, down from 51 percent in 2010,
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Rudakubana “should never be released from prison”, and said his sentencing now sparks need for debate about amending the law to allow judges to hand Whole Life Sentences to under-18s.
She added: “My heart goes out to the victims and their families. None of us can imagine your pain and we owe you justice.”
Southport MP Patrick Hurley has also said the law may need to be changed, telling Times Radio that the killer’s age at the time of the murders shou
Nigel Farage’s Secret Weapon and the One Trap Reform UK Must Not Fall Into
Nigel Farage has built Reform UK into a prominent force in British politics by tapping into public frustration with immigration, the cost of living and the performance of successive governments. His direct communication style and ability to turn complicated political debates into simple messages have helped the party attract attention far beyond its traditional support base.
But as Reform seeks to establish itself as a serious alternative to Labour and the Conservatives, its greatest advantage could also become a source of vulnerability. The challenge facing Farage is not simply how to maintain momentum. It is how to turn a movement built around protest into a political organisation capable of demonstrating competence, consistency and accountability.
Farage’s Secret Weapon: Understanding Voter Frustration
Farage’s political appeal rests partly on his ability to identify issues that many voters believe established politicians have neglected.
Immigration has been central to Reform’s message, particularly concerns about small-boat crossings, the asylum system and the government’s ability to enforce its own rules. The party has also focused on taxation, economic growth, public services and what it describes as a lack of accountability within the political establishment.
Rather than presenting these issues as isolated policy questions, Farage frequently connects them to a broader argument about trust. His message is that voters deserve politicians who listen to their concerns and are prepared to challenge existing arrangements.
For people who feel disappointed by both Labour and the Conservatives, that argument can offer an appealing alternative.
Farage also benefits from years of experience in political campaigning and media appearances. His recognisable public profile allows him to communicate the party’s priorities quickly, while controversial statements and confrontational interviews can keep Reform in the national conversation.
This visibility is valuable for a party competing against organisations with longer histories, established local networks and substantial political experience.
However, visibility is not the same as public approval, and dissatisfaction with the government does not automatically translate into lasting support for its opponents. Reform must continually demonstrate why its own proposals deserve consideration.
Why the Outsider Image Matters
One of Reform’s most important political assets is its claim to stand outside the established political system.
The party has attempted to distinguish itself from Labour and the Conservatives by arguing that both have failed to resolve persistent problems. Its supporters may disagree about individual policies, but frustration with the traditional parties can provide a common reason for backing Reform.
This creates an opportunity for Farage to present his party as an alternative to familiar political choices.
Yet the outsider identity comes with a difficult contradiction. The more successful Reform becomes, the more scrutiny it attracts. A party that seeks greater influence must explain not only what it opposes but also what it would do differently.
It is relatively straightforward to criticise a government for failing to control immigration, improve public services or strengthen economic growth. It is considerably harder to set out a detailed programme, identify the resources required and explain how competing priorities would be reconciled.
Reform will therefore need to show that its criticism is accompanied by practical proposals. Otherwise, the distinction between offering an alternative and simply expressing dissatisfaction could become increasingly difficult to maintain.
The Trap Reform Must Avoid
The biggest danger is assuming that Farage’s personal profile and the public’s frustration with established parties will be sufficient to sustain the movement indefinitely.
A political party cannot depend on one individual to provide its entire identity, communicate every policy and resolve every internal disagreement. It needs a wider group of capable representatives who can defend its positions, answer difficult questions and demonstrate experience in public office.
This is particularly important as Reform expands its presence in local government and seeks to attract candidates across the country.
Rapid growth can create opportunities, but it also presents organisational challenges. New representatives need appropriate training, clear standards of conduct and a sound understanding of their responsibilities. Party leaders must establish effective procedures for dealing with complaints, financial questions and disagreements within the organisation.
Without those safeguards, internal controversies can consume attention that would otherwise be devoted to policy.
Reform also faces the risk of allowing personal disputes to overshadow its political objectives. Disagreements among prominent figures can become major news stories, particularly when they involve questions of leadership, authority or the party’s direction.
Such disagreements are not unique to Reform. Established parties have experienced their own leadership conflicts and internal divisions. But a movement that promises a different approach to politics must be prepared to explain how it will manage its own problems.
The central lesson is that a distinctive leader can help establish a political movement, but effective institutions are needed to sustain it.
Immigration: From Slogans to Solutions
Immigration is one of the clearest examples of the challenge Reform faces.
The party has made stronger border controls and action against irregular migration central to its political platform. These issues resonate with voters who want greater certainty about how the asylum system operates and whether people who have no legal right to remain will be removed.
However, delivering meaningful changes requires more than announcing ambitious targets.
The government must establish the identity of individuals, process asylum applications, comply with legal requirements and negotiate with countries that may need to accept people being returned. It must also distinguish between people whose claims qualify for protection and those whose applications have been finally rejected.
These are complex administrative and legal tasks.
Reform will need to explain how its proposals would work in practice, how they would be funded and what measures would prevent unnecessary delays. It will also need to address the possibility that some intended outcomes may prove harder to achieve than expected.
Clear policies would allow voters to assess the party’s proposals on their merits rather than relying solely on its criticism of the current system.
The same principle applies to taxation, public spending and economic policy. Broad promises may attract attention, but detailed explanations are necessary if a party wants to establish credibility beyond its core supporters.
Local Government Will Provide a Practical Test
Reform’s local representatives could play an important role in demonstrating whether the party can translate its political message into tangible results.
Councillors make decisions that affect everyday life, including waste collection, planning, housing, local roads and other services. Their performance provides voters with a practical way to judge a party’s priorities and administrative abilities.
If Reform-controlled councils manage their responsibilities effectively, communicate decisions clearly and maintain appropriate financial oversight, the party can point to concrete examples of its approach.
If councils instead become associated with internal disputes, administrative problems or promises that cannot be delivered, the consequences could extend beyond individual local authorities.
Local government is not identical to national government, and success at one level does not guarantee success at another. Nevertheless, the conduct of councillors can influence public perceptions of a party’s readiness for wider responsibilities.
For Farage, this means ensuring that expansion is accompanied by effective oversight. Recruiting representatives is only one part of building a political organisation; supporting them and holding them accountable are equally important.
Donations, Transparency and Public Trust
Financial transparency is another area in which Reform’s actions will be closely examined.
Political parties rely on donations to finance campaigning, communications and organisational development. Those donations must be handled in accordance with the relevant electoral rules, with appropriate checks and records.
Questions about donations can become particularly sensitive for a party that presents itself as challenging established political practices. Supporters may expect Reform to demonstrate that its internal procedures reflect the standards it demands from others.
The party therefore has an interest in ensuring that its financial arrangements are transparent, that potential donations are properly assessed and that any concerns are addressed promptly.
This is not simply a question of public relations. Financial oversight is an important part of maintaining confidence in political institutions.
The same principle applies to candidate selection and internal decision-making. Clear procedures can help reduce uncertainty, limit disputes and demonstrate that the party’s standards do not depend on the identity or influence of individual members.
Can Reform Keep Its Momentum Without Losing Its Identity?
As Reform develops, Farage will face a balancing act.
If the party becomes too similar to the organisations it criticises, it risks weakening the distinctive identity that helped attract its supporters. But if it relies entirely on opposition to the political establishment, it may struggle to convince voters that it is prepared to manage the responsibilities of government.
The answer lies in combining a clear political message with a credible programme and an organisation capable of implementing it.
That means explaining policy costs, setting measurable objectives, selecting capable candidates and acknowledging the practical limitations of government. It also means accepting scrutiny rather than treating every difficult question as an attempt to undermine the party.
Voters are entitled to examine the promises made by all political parties. Reform’s claim to offer a different approach does not remove that responsibility; it makes the party’s response to scrutiny especially significant.
The Real Test for Nigel Farage
Farage’s ability to connect with disillusioned voters has helped make Reform UK a significant participant in Britain’s political debate. His public profile, direct communication style and emphasis on issues such as immigration have given the party a recognisable identity.
But the long-term strength of Reform will depend on more than its leader’s ability to command attention.
The party must demonstrate that it can develop workable policies, maintain internal discipline, manage its finances transparently and deliver results through its representatives. It must also recognise that voters who support it today may reassess their position if its promises are not matched by performance.
The trap is assuming that political momentum will sustain itself without continued evidence of competence.
For Farage, the challenge is to preserve the connection with voters who feel ignored while building an organisation that can withstand the pressures of greater responsibility. For Reform UK, the broader question is whether it can move beyond challenging the established parties and demonstrate what its own approach would mean in practice.
Ultimately, the party’s future credibility will depend not only on the strength of its criticism but also on the quality of its proposals, the conduct of its representatives and its willingness to be held accountable for the results.
A compelling political message can open the door to greater influence. What happens after that will depend on whether Reform can turn its promises into a coherent and credible record of action.