Nigel Farage clashed with Sir Keir Starmer in a heated Prime Minister’s Questions today. The Reform UK leader asked the Prime Minister about closing three migrant hotels in an area with a council led by his insurgent party during the Commons session.
But Sir Keir, who is facing questions over his leadership, accused the Clacton MP of being “spineless” after he failed to condemn a comment made by a Cambridgeshire councillor. Reform councillor Andy Osborn told Cambridgeshire County Council in a meeting that some children in care are “not just naughty children, they can be downright evil” as they discussed the council’s overspend on care placements.
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.
During PMQs, Labour MP Darren Paffey called on the Prime Minister to condemn Reform’s “vile rhetoric”.
Responding, Sir Keir said: “The comments about children in care being evil are utterly appalling, and now the Member for Clacton has heard them, I’m sure he’ll want to condemn them right now.”
Mr Farage was then called for his question, which he used to ask about asylum seeker hotels.
The Clacton MP said: “No, I’ve only got 30 seconds. The Prime Minister has stated very clearly that he wants to close the migrant hotels by the end of this Parliament.
Sir Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage clashed during PMQs (Image: PA/PARLIAMENT TV)
“Well, the Reform-led West Northamptonshire Council, brilliantly led Council, will be issuing foreclosure notices on three migrant hotels within the next few days in response to grave public concern about the safety of women and girls on the streets of West Northamptonshire.
“Would the Prime Minister approve of us speeding up the closure of the migrant hotels?”
Sir Keir replied: “We will grip the mess we inherited and close every hotel. Under the previous Government, there were 400 hotels, now there are only 200 remaining.
“But he says he doesn’t have time to condemn the comments calling children in care evil.
“He’s also not had the time, it appears, to condemn the racist comments of his own MP. Utterly spineless.”
Nigel Farage in Furious Clash with Keir Starmer at PMQs
Nigel Farage and Keir Starmer became embroiled in a heated confrontation at Prime Minister’s Questions as the Reform UK leader challenged the government over the police handling of the murder of 18-year-old Henry Nowak.
The exchange on June 3, 2026, was one of the most striking moments of that week’s parliamentary session. Farage used his intervention to raise the issue of what he called “two-tier policing”, while Starmer accused the Reform leader of exploiting a tragic death to create anger and division.
The confrontation came after the murder of Henry Nowak in Southampton had triggered intense public and political debate. Nowak had been stabbed by Vickrum Digwa, who falsely claimed that he had been the victim of a racist attack. Police initially arrested Nowak while he was seriously injured. Digwa was subsequently convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years.
The circumstances surrounding the case raised serious questions about police decision-making and the guidance officers were working under.
Farage entered the debate by arguing that the incident demonstrated the existence of “two-tier policing” in Britain. During PMQs, he called on Starmer to take action, arguing that public anger could intensify if people lost confidence in the police.
“It is now clear to growing millions in this country that we’re living under two-tier policing,” Farage said during his intervention, according to coverage of the exchange.
He pointed specifically to anti-racism guidance issued within policing and argued that such guidance could influence the way officers responded to incidents involving allegations of racism.
For Farage, the issue was therefore bigger than one individual case. He presented it as evidence of a wider problem involving institutional attitudes within Britain’s police forces.
Starmer rejected that interpretation.
The prime minister said there was no justification for describing British policing as “two-tier” and accused Farage of using the tragedy for political purposes.
Starmer also referred to comments made by Nowak’s father following the conclusion of the murder trial. The family had urged people not to use the death to create further hatred, tension or division.
According to the BBC’s account of the exchange, Starmer argued that politicians should respond with “serious work, not rage”.
The contrast between the two politicians was unmistakable.
Farage presented the incident as a warning about public confidence in institutions. Starmer presented it as a case requiring careful examination of police procedures without turning the tragedy into a wider political confrontation.
The exchange also demonstrated the increasingly prominent position of Reform UK in Westminster.
Although Reform remains much smaller in parliamentary numbers than Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats, Farage has become one of the most recognisable figures in British politics. His interventions at major political moments often attract substantial attention, particularly when he challenges the government’s approach to immigration, policing or national identity.
At PMQs, however, he faced considerable opposition from MPs around him.
Reports from the session described Farage being heavily heckled as he made his arguments. The BBC’s live coverage noted that his intervention attracted intense reaction from MPs, including Liberal Democrats sitting nearby.
The atmosphere reflected the broader political sensitivity surrounding the Nowak case.
Violence had erupted in Southampton after protests connected with the murder. Eleven police officers were injured during the disorder, along with a police dog, according to Sky News.
That development made the political language surrounding the case particularly consequential.
Starmer’s argument was that politicians had a responsibility to avoid encouraging further confrontation. Farage, meanwhile, argued that refusing to acknowledge public anger could itself undermine trust.
The disagreement was therefore not simply about what had happened to Nowak. It was also about how politicians should respond when a highly controversial criminal case exposes concerns about policing, race and public confidence.
There was, however, an important nuance to Farage’s argument.
The government’s position was that the existence of problematic or poorly worded guidance did not prove that Britain operated a system of “two-tier policing”. The BBC reported that while ministers rejected Farage’s wider claim, the policing minister had acknowledged that some of the relevant guidance was wrong, while a source close to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood described its wording as clumsy.
That distinction became central to the debate.
Critics of Farage’s position argued that a particular policing failure should not automatically be treated as evidence of a nationwide policy of discrimination.
Farage’s argument was different. He believed the case exposed a deeper institutional problem and wanted the government to confront it directly.
The dispute also highlighted how quickly individual criminal cases can become national political flashpoints.
In the past, similar arguments about policing have emerged around demonstrations, immigration enforcement, protest movements and allegations of unequal treatment. Supporters of the “two-tier policing” argument say certain groups have been treated differently depending on the political or racial circumstances involved. Critics argue that such claims can oversimplify complicated policing decisions and risk undermining confidence in the police without sufficient evidence.
The Nowak case provided both sides with material for their respective arguments.
For Farage, the initial police response raised questions that demanded political accountability.
For Starmer, the case required investigation and reform where necessary, but not rhetoric that could deepen social tensions.
The prime minister’s response was particularly forceful because of the circumstances surrounding the protests.
Starmer argued that Farage had responded to the murder with a call for “rage”, while Nowak’s family had specifically asked that the tragedy not be used to fuel further division. The Standard reported that Starmer described the approach as “unforgivable” during the clash.
Farage did not accept the criticism.
His broader political argument has consistently been that politicians should not ignore public anger simply because the subject is controversial. He has portrayed Reform as a party willing to address issues that established parties are reluctant to discuss.
That strategy has helped make policing, immigration and national identity central themes in Reform’s political messaging.
The confrontation at PMQs also demonstrated the increasingly competitive relationship between Reform and the Labour Party.
Farage has sought to position Reform as a direct challenger to Labour, particularly among voters dissatisfied with immigration policy and the performance of public institutions. Labour, meanwhile, has sought to draw a clear distinction between legitimate concerns about government policy and what it regards as inflammatory political rhetoric.
The disagreement over Nowak therefore became part of a much larger political struggle.
It also came at a time when Farage was facing increasing scrutiny over other aspects of his political career. In the months following the PMQs confrontation, his finances and Reform UK’s political organisation became subjects of further controversy. Farage has consistently rejected allegations of wrongdoing and has portrayed some investigations and criticism as attempts by the political establishment to undermine Reform.
That broader context helps explain why the PMQs clash attracted so much attention.
Farage has increasingly presented himself as a politician prepared to confront established institutions. Starmer’s response suggested that the prime minister was equally prepared to challenge Farage when he believed the Reform leader was using a sensitive issue in an irresponsible way.
The exchange was consequently about more than one question in Parliament.
It represented two competing approaches to political leadership.
Farage emphasised anger, accountability and the need to confront institutional failures. Starmer emphasised evidence, responsibility and the need to prevent tragedy from becoming a source of further social conflict.
Neither approach removes the underlying questions raised by the Nowak case.
Police guidance can be examined. Decisions made by individual officers can be investigated. Institutions can be held accountable where mistakes are established. At the same time, broader claims about systemic “two-tier policing” require evidence beyond one case.
That distinction will remain important as Britain continues to debate policing, race relations and public trust.
The confrontation at PMQs ultimately showed how deeply contested these issues have become.
Farage left the exchange continuing to argue that the government needed to confront what he regarded as unequal policing. Starmer left no doubt that he rejected the Reform leader’s interpretation and believed his political response risked worsening tensions.
The episode therefore became another defining moment in the increasingly sharp political rivalry between Labour and Reform.
For audiences watching the exchange, the most important questions extend beyond the angry words exchanged across the Commons chamber: What lessons should be drawn from the police handling of Henry Nowak’s case? Was existing guidance sufficiently clear? What changes, if any, are necessary? And how can politicians address legitimate concerns about policing without increasing hostility between communities?
Those questions remain substantially larger than one PMQs confrontation.
What the clash demonstrated, however, is that Farage and Starmer have very different answers to how Britain should respond when public trust in institutions is placed under pressure.