Robert Jenrick said people “should take to the streets” to show their anger with Rachel Reeves over fuel prices.
Reform UK‘s Treasury spokesman made the comments amid threats by farmers unless the Chancellor cuts tax on red diesel used for tractors.
Speaking at Reform’s latest petrol station stunt, Mr Jenrick said: “I think people should take to the streets. Show how angry they are and demand that Rachel Reeves does something about it.”
Reform is calling on the Government to halve VAT on fuel amid the Iran war, which has sent prices soaring.
Robert Jenrick Urges People to ‘Take to the Streets’ Over Fuel Price Hikes
Robert Jenrick has urged people to “take to the streets” in protest against rising fuel prices, escalating Reform UK’s campaign against the government’s approach to motorists, farmers and households facing higher transport costs.
Jenrick, Reform UK’s Treasury spokesman, made the comments as he attacked Chancellor Rachel Reeves over the cost of petrol and diesel. He argued that the government should take immediate action to reduce the burden on drivers, including by cutting VAT on fuel and reconsidering planned changes to fuel duty.
His comments came amid a period of sharply increased fuel prices and growing political pressure over the cost of filling cars, vans, tractors and other vehicles.
In Parliament, Jenrick highlighted the example of a domiciliary care worker who reportedly drives around 70 miles every day and had considered whether he could afford to continue working because of the cost of fuel. Jenrick invited Reeves to meet people at a planned national fuel protest and called on the government to reduce VAT on fuel.
The intervention illustrates how Reform has attempted to turn fuel prices into a broader political argument about the cost of living.
Jenrick’s call for protests
The strongest part of Jenrick’s intervention was his response when asked about farmers potentially blockading roads because of rising fuel costs.
Rather than distancing himself from the prospect of demonstrations, Jenrick said that people should “take to the streets” to show how angry they were and demand government action.
He argued that Reeves was behaving like a bystander rather than a chancellor capable of responding to the pressures facing households and businesses.
His comments were particularly focused on farmers, who rely heavily on diesel for tractors and other machinery.
Jenrick argued that the combination of high fuel prices and other pressures on agriculture had created a severe financial strain. He said the government should reduce VAT on petrol and diesel as an emergency measure.
The proposal has been one of Reform’s central demands during the fuel-price controversy.
The party has argued that cutting VAT from 20% to 10% would provide an immediate reduction in the price paid at the pump.
Why fuel prices became such a major issue
The dispute developed during a period when international events were pushing energy markets higher.
According to the government’s explanation, households and businesses were dealing with the consequences of instability in the Middle East and higher global energy prices. The government maintained that Britain was being affected by circumstances beyond its direct control.
At the same time, motorists were facing the practical consequences every time they filled up.
For people who drive long distances to work, fuel costs can represent a substantial part of household expenditure. The same is true for delivery drivers, tradespeople, carers, farmers and businesses whose operations depend on road transport.
That makes fuel taxation particularly politically sensitive.
A change of only a few pence per litre can become significant for someone buying hundreds of litres each week.
Reform’s proposed VAT cut
Reform has called for an emergency reduction in VAT on petrol and diesel.
At one Reform campaign event, the party temporarily reduced prices at a petrol station, with the discount funded by the party. Jenrick argued that the exercise demonstrated how much difference a VAT reduction could make to motorists.
The campaign presented the reduction as an illustration of what the government could achieve through a temporary tax cut.
The political message was straightforward: if Reform could lower prices at a single forecourt, the government could potentially reduce costs for motorists across the country by changing taxation.
However, the comparison has limitations.
A political party funding a temporary discount at one petrol station is not the same as a government permanently changing the tax system. A national VAT reduction would have significant consequences for the Treasury’s revenues and would need to be incorporated into the government’s broader fiscal plans.
The question is therefore not simply whether a VAT reduction could lower pump prices.
It is also how much revenue the government would lose and how that lost revenue would be replaced.
The fuel duty dispute
The argument over VAT is taking place alongside a separate dispute over fuel duty.
Fuel duty had been frozen for many years, following the 5p-per-litre reduction introduced in 2022 during the energy crisis. The government subsequently announced that the temporary reduction would be unwound in stages.
According to reporting from the London Standard, the government planned for the 5p reduction to be reversed between September 2026 and March 2027.
Reform has strongly opposed the increase.
The party argues that reversing the 5p cut at a time when motorists are already facing high prices would add further pressure to household budgets.
The government has taken a different position, arguing that fuel duty remains relatively low by historical standards and that fiscal decisions have to be considered alongside wider economic pressures.
In Parliament, Reeves told Jenrick that fuel duty had never been lower during the 14 years he spent as a Conservative MP. She also said the government was keeping fuel duty under review.
The disagreement therefore involves both immediate fuel prices and the longer-term structure of motoring taxation.
The farming dimension
Farmers have become one of the most visible groups in the fuel-price debate.
Agricultural businesses use large amounts of diesel, particularly during planting and harvesting periods. A substantial increase in fuel costs can therefore have a direct effect on operating expenses.
Jenrick argued that farmers were facing an especially difficult situation and suggested that protests or road blockades could become a response to government inaction.
That rhetoric reflects the wider political pressure surrounding agriculture.
Farmers have already protested against government policies in other areas, including taxation and inheritance rules. Fuel prices provide another issue around which rural businesses can mobilise.
The government has pointed to the continued tax advantage enjoyed by red diesel as part of its response. A Treasury spokesman said red diesel continues to receive an 80% tax discount, saving farmers almost £300 million a year, while the government was also providing £11.8 billion in support for farm costs.
That response illustrates the different approaches of the two sides.
Reform focuses on reducing the immediate price paid for fuel.
The government argues that existing support mechanisms and tax arrangements already provide substantial assistance to the agricultural sector.
From protest rhetoric to a real demonstration
Jenrick’s call for people to protest was followed by an actual Reform-organised demonstration in London.
The party promoted a “national fuel protest” in Whitehall on April 27, presenting it as a demonstration against planned fuel-duty increases and the government’s treatment of motorists.
But the turnout was considerably smaller than the promotional material suggested.
LBC reported that the planned march was called off after only a small number of supporters appeared. The outlet said the only vehicles present initially were a Reform UK bus and a taxi, with a few dozen people gathered around them, many of whom were journalists.
The Independent similarly reported that the planned march was cancelled after the expected vehicles failed to materialise.
The contrast between the scale of the political rhetoric and the eventual turnout is significant.
Calling for people to “take to the streets” is one thing. Generating a large national protest movement is considerably more difficult.
Political risks for Reform
For Reform, the fuel campaign offers both opportunities and risks.
The issue fits naturally with the party’s wider message about taxation, household finances and what it describes as excessive government intervention.
Motorists are also a large potential constituency.
A policy that reduces the cost of filling a car or van can have an immediate and easily understood effect, unlike some economic policies whose consequences are more difficult to see.
But there is also a question about the long-term fiscal consequences.
Cutting fuel taxes reduces government revenue. If a government wants to compensate for that loss, it must either reduce spending, raise another tax or borrow more.
Reform would therefore need to explain how a permanent reduction in fuel taxation would fit into its wider economic plans.
The party has argued that economic growth and reductions in other areas of public spending could offset the cost, but those claims would require detailed fiscal calculations before they could be assessed as an established saving.
Reeves faces a difficult balancing act
For Reeves, the political problem is equally complicated.
Drivers want lower prices, particularly when household budgets are under pressure.
At the same time, the Treasury needs revenue to fund public services and meet the government’s fiscal rules.
The Chancellor has therefore resisted presenting a simple promise to cut fuel taxes.
Her response has instead emphasised wider economic policy and the government’s attempts to limit the effects of international instability.
That argument is unlikely to satisfy Reform.
Farage and Jenrick have repeatedly portrayed the government’s position as evidence that ministers are disconnected from the daily experience of motorists.
The fuel issue consequently provides Reform with a way to connect taxation with everyday life.
More than a dispute over petrol
The political significance of the row extends beyond the price displayed on a petrol station sign.
Fuel costs affect the price of transporting goods, running businesses and delivering services.
When diesel becomes more expensive, farmers face higher production costs. Hauliers face increased operating expenses. Tradespeople may have to travel less or charge more. Delivery companies can face higher costs that eventually feed through into consumer prices.
That makes fuel taxation an issue with broader economic consequences.
It also explains why Jenrick has attempted to link motorists, farmers, care workers and other groups into one political coalition.
His argument is that the government should recognise fuel as a basic economic necessity rather than simply another source of tax revenue.
The meaning of “take to the streets”
Jenrick’s phrase was deliberately forceful.
By encouraging people to take to the streets, he sought to frame fuel prices as an issue requiring public pressure rather than simply parliamentary debate.
However, the subsequent size of Reform’s Whitehall demonstration showed the difficulty of translating political anger into mass mobilisation.
The episode also illustrates a broader feature of modern political campaigning.
Social media can make a demonstration appear much larger before it takes place than it ultimately becomes. Campaign graphics can show hundreds of tractors, lorries and vans, but the real test is how many people actually turn up.
For Reform, the fuel campaign therefore became both a policy argument and a test of its ability to mobilise supporters around an economic issue.
What happens next?
The government faces continuing pressure over fuel prices as the scheduled fuel-duty changes approach.
Reform is likely to continue demanding a VAT cut and opposition to increases in fuel duty. Jenrick’s intervention suggests that the party intends to make motorists and farmers a major focus of its economic messaging.
But the debate ultimately comes down to competing choices.
Lower fuel taxes could reduce the price paid by motorists but would also reduce Treasury revenues. Maintaining taxation provides government income but can increase costs for people and businesses that depend heavily on vehicles.
There is no simple answer that removes the trade-off.
Jenrick’s call for people to “take to the streets” has therefore become a striking part of the political confrontation over fuel.
His supporters can interpret the statement as an attempt to give frustrated motorists and farmers a stronger voice. Critics can point to the limited turnout at Reform’s subsequent national protest as evidence of the gap between political rhetoric and mass mobilisation.
What is certain is that fuel prices have become another battleground between Reform and the government.
For Jenrick and Farage, the issue represents the cost of government taxation and what they describe as a failure to protect households from international price shocks.
For Reeves, the challenge is to balance pressure on household finances with the need to maintain public finances.
As the next changes to fuel duty approach, the argument is unlikely to disappear. The question will be whether political pressure produces a change in taxation—or whether the government maintains its existing approach despite Reform’s increasingly vocal campaign.