Are Internal Divisions Threatening Reform UK's Rise?

By: Adrian Khodavardar

For a party that has spent the past two years presenting itself as the credible alternative to Britain's established political order, Reform UK's latest internal dispute is more than an embarrassment. It raises questions about whether the party can maintain a coherent message as it grows.

Last week, two of Reform's most senior figures publicly contradicted one another over one of the party's defining policies. Speaking on Sky News, Robert Jenrick, the former Conservative immigration minister who now serves as Reform's treasury spokesman, suggested that foreign nationals living in social housing would not be deported solely for that reason. Instead, he linked deportation to a broader assessment of earnings and working hours.

Within days, Reform's home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf rejected that interpretation on X. "Robert's answer is not Reform policy," Yusuf wrote. He argued that living in social housing would automatically fail Reform's proposed economic test and could lead to deportation proceedings.

The disagreement was striking because it centred on immigration, the issue that has done more than any other to drive Reform's rise.

When senior figures cannot publicly agree on a flagship policy, questions about competence inevitably follow.

The timing is particularly awkward. Reform is fighting a closely watched contest in the Makerfield by-election in Greater Manchester. Labour has invested heavily in the campaign by selecting Andy Burnham, one of the party's most recognisable and popular figures. A Reform victory would carry significance far beyond a single constituency.

Polling suggests the race remains competitive. A Survation survey found Labour narrowly ahead. Yet it also indicated that the combined support for Reform and the right-wing splinter group Restore Britain could be enough to win the seat if united behind a single candidate.

That unity appears unlikely. Restore Britain has gained traction online and is attracting support from some voters who might otherwise back Reform. Reports suggest Reform activists have distributed leaflets warning voters that Restore Britain cannot win the seat. For a party that has built its reputation on momentum and confidence, having to defend its own vote from a challenger is not an ideal position.

The Jenrick-Yusuf dispute also reflects a broader pattern. Earlier this year, Reform's London mayoral candidate Laila Cunningham argued that the party's approach to immigration was limiting its appeal in the capital. Her comments highlighted a strategic dilemma that has followed Reform for some time.

The party's core support comes from voters who favour a hard line on immigration and are deeply frustrated with the political establishment. Expanding beyond that base may require a different tone and a broader appeal. Balancing those two objectives is easier in opposition than in a party seeking national power.

Personal rivalries may also be playing a role. Yusuf and Jenrick have reportedly clashed in the past, and Reform's rapid growth has brought together former Conservatives and long-standing Reform activists who do not always share the same political instincts. Such tensions are common in expanding parties, but they become more significant when they emerge publicly.

This matters because Reform is no longer a fringe force. The party made substantial gains in the 2026 local elections and continues to perform strongly in national polling. Some projections suggest Reform could emerge as the largest party at the next general election. It remains particularly strong among older voters and has established itself as a serious challenger in many former Labour strongholds.

Those achievements are significant. Yet electoral momentum alone does not answer questions about how a party would govern. Voters can tolerate a degree of internal disagreement, but they also expect clarity on major policies. Immigration is not a secondary issue for Reform. It sits at the centre of the party's political identity.

That is why the Jenrick-Yusuf row matters. The dispute was not about a minor policy detail. It concerned one of Reform's most prominent proposals and exposed uncertainty about how that proposal would work in practice.

The challenge for Reform is no longer proving that public dissatisfaction exists. The election results already demonstrate that.

The challenge is convincing voters that the party can translate that dissatisfaction into a coherent programme for government.

Its opponents will seize on every sign of inconsistency. Whether those attacks resonate is another matter. Many Reform supporters are motivated less by policy detail than by a belief that the existing political system has failed them.

Even so, as Reform moves closer to power, scrutiny will intensify. Political movements can thrive on broad themes and popular frustration. Parties seeking government face a different test. They must show not only what they oppose, but also how they would govern.

The Jenrick-Yusuf dispute has brought that distinction into sharper focus than any opposition attack could.

Image: Flickr