Zarah Sultana thinks Nigel Farage has the features of a fascist politician (Image: Getty)
Nigel Farage has “all the features of a fascist politician”, Zarah Sultana has said. Ms Sultana, the MP for Coventry South and co-founder of Your Party, a new political party with Jeremy Corbyn, accused Mr Farage and his fellow Reform MPs of being “committed to peddling racism”. When asked whether Nigel Farage can be compared to Hitler or Mussolini, Ms Sultana did not directly confirm the claim but also did not deny it, claiming that his actions make him “a danger”.
“I think it’s important that we stop a fascist Reform government,” Ms Sultana, who had been a prominent figure of the Labour left before she quit the party in July, added.
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.
Mr Farage has not yet responded to Ms Sultana’s claims (Image: Getty)
Ms Sultana said this during an interview for the BBC‘s Political Thinking with Nick Robinson.
When challenged on her use of the word “fascist“, Ms Sultana added: “When someone attacks trade union rights, when they are not supportive of minority communities, when they are trying to get us out of the ECHR [European Court of Human Rights] so they can get away with anything.
“When there is no state accountability, we can see what’s happening across Europe, which is a descent into fascism.”
Mr Robinson then said she was comparing Mr Farage to “Franco, Mussolini and arguably Hitler”.
She replied: “I have legitimate concerns about what a Nigel Farage government would do to trade unionists, to working-class communities, to minority communities, to LGBT people.
“And what I’ve seen in government is Nigel Farage and his colleagues, like I said, vote against trade union rights, vote against anything that would actually help our working-class communities. So yes, he’s a danger.”
Last month, Sir Keir Starmer described Reform’s immigration policy as “racist” after the party said it would scrap rules that allowed migrants to stay in Britain after a set period of time.
Mr Farage had not yet responded to her comments.
The MP’s claim comes following several bold statements from Ms Sultana. Last week, she called on Sir Keir Starmer to suspend all diplomatic relations with Israel and withdraw the UK from NATO.
In a tweet, she wrote: “NATO isn’t about ‘peace’ or ‘security’. It’s an imperialist war machine. Just look at Afghanistan and Libya… We must withdraw from NATO immediately.”
In the past, Ms Sultana also claimed that “Putin is a dictator and a gangster” but “Zelensky isn’t a friend of the working class either”.
Zarah Sultana Brands Nigel Farage a ‘Fascist’ and a ‘Danger’ in Furious Rant
Zarah Sultana has launched a fierce attack on Nigel Farage, describing the Reform UK leader as having “all the features of a fascist politician” and warning that he represents a danger to communities across Britain.
The comments have intensified an already highly charged political debate surrounding Reform UK, immigration, workers’ rights and the future direction of British politics. Sultana’s intervention also highlights the growing ideological divide between the political left and Reform, a party that has increasingly challenged the established political parties.
Speaking during an interview, Sultana argued that she had serious concerns about what a future government led by Farage could mean for trade unionists, working-class communities, minority groups and LGBT people. She linked her concerns to Reform’s political positions and its parliamentary record.
Her use of the word “fascist” immediately attracted attention because of the historical significance of the term. Fascism is associated with authoritarian political movements that emerged in Europe during the twentieth century, most famously under Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany.
Applying such a label to a contemporary politician is therefore a serious political claim.
Sultana has attempted to explain her reasoning rather than simply using the word as an insult. She pointed to what she described as opposition to trade union rights, concerns about minority communities and proposals involving Britain’s relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights.
She also argued that a lack of effective accountability could create conditions in which authoritarian politics becomes more powerful.
Farage and Reform UK reject characterisations of the party as fascist.
Reform presents itself as a democratic political party campaigning on issues including immigration, taxation, regulation, national sovereignty and economic reform. Farage has repeatedly argued that his party represents voters who feel that traditional political parties have failed to address their concerns.
The disagreement between the two sides therefore goes considerably deeper than one exchange between politicians.
It reflects two very different interpretations of Britain’s political direction.
Sultana’s political position has developed from the left of the Labour movement and her subsequent involvement in a new left-wing political project. She has consistently criticised Conservative and Reform policies on issues including immigration, workers’ rights and economic inequality.
Farage, meanwhile, has spent much of his political career challenging the political establishment from the right. He became one of the most prominent advocates of Brexit and later returned to frontline politics as leader of Reform UK.
The clash between the two figures is therefore representative of a wider ideological confrontation.
At the centre of the disagreement is the question of immigration.
Reform has made reducing immigration one of its major political priorities. Farage has argued that Britain needs much tighter control of its borders and a significant reduction in migration.
Supporters of those policies argue that high levels of migration can place pressure on housing, public services and infrastructure. Critics argue that immigration is economically and socially complex and that migrants make important contributions to the labour market and public finances.
The debate has become particularly intense because immigration is closely connected to questions about national identity, integration and public services.
For Sultana, however, the issue goes beyond immigration policy itself.
Her warning about Farage reflects a broader concern about what she sees as the consequences of political rhetoric directed at migrants and minority communities.
That concern is shared by some political opponents of Reform, while Reform supporters strongly reject the suggestion that its immigration policies are motivated by hostility toward minority groups.
The controversy demonstrates why political language matters.
When a politician uses terms such as “fascist”, the word can dominate discussion of the underlying policies. Supporters may interpret it as a warning about authoritarian tendencies, while opponents may see it as an attempt to discredit a political rival without engaging with the substance of their proposals.
That makes the distinction between political criticism and historical classification particularly important.
A party can be criticised for a particular policy without necessarily being assigned a broader ideological label. Likewise, concerns about a politician’s rhetoric can be discussed without assuming that every allegation made by an opponent has been established as fact.
Farage’s political record provides considerable material for debate.
In March 2026, an investigation by The Guardian reported that videos from Farage’s paid Cameo appearances included endorsements connected to a neo-Nazi event, repetition of far-right slogans and support for a man convicted in connection with a far-right riot. The report also identified other controversial material in the videos.
Such reporting has become part of the broader discussion surrounding Farage and the political movement he leads.
However, individual incidents and allegations need to be distinguished from claims about an entire political organisation. Farage’s supporters can argue that controversial comments or associations do not necessarily define Reform’s official political programme.
This distinction is particularly important in a politically polarised environment.
Sultana’s comments also need to be understood in the context of her own political priorities.
She has been an outspoken advocate on issues including workers’ rights, social security, public services and minority rights. Her criticism of Reform is therefore consistent with a wider political argument that economic inequality and weakened social protections can create conditions for greater political extremism.
She has previously connected concerns about inequality with the historical rise of fascism, arguing that extreme disparities in wealth and political power can create opportunities for authoritarian movements.
Farage’s supporters offer a fundamentally different interpretation.
They argue that Reform is responding to democratic demands from voters who want changes to immigration policy, taxation, government spending and national sovereignty.
From that perspective, describing the party as fascist does not address the reasons voters support it.
This is one of the central tensions in contemporary British politics.
Political movements that challenge the established consensus often attract strong opposition from those who believe their policies could undermine existing institutions or social protections. At the same time, supporters of those movements may regard criticism from established political groups as evidence that the political establishment does not understand their concerns.
The result can be a cycle of increasingly strong rhetoric.
One side uses increasingly severe descriptions of the other, while the other side argues that such language demonstrates how disconnected political opponents have become from ordinary voters.
Social media has intensified this process.
Statements made during interviews can be clipped into short videos and circulated widely, often without the surrounding context. A complex argument can therefore become reduced to a single word or sentence.
Sultana’s use of “fascist” is a clear example of how political language can dominate an entire news cycle.
Yet the substantive questions remain.
What would a Reform government actually do?
How would its immigration policies operate?
What would happen to trade union rights?
How would its economic programme affect public spending?
What changes would it seek in Britain’s relationship with European human-rights institutions?
And how would those policies affect different sections of society?
Those questions can be examined through legislation, voting records, party policy documents and parliamentary debate.
They are more informative than political labels alone.
Sultana’s own parliamentary record provides another part of the picture. The official UK Parliament record shows her voting on a wide range of legislation, including employment rights, immigration, health and constitutional matters.
The political confrontation between Sultana and Farage is therefore likely to continue because their policy priorities are so different.
For Sultana, the central concern is protecting workers, minorities and social rights while challenging economic inequality.
For Farage and Reform, the emphasis is on changing immigration policy, increasing national sovereignty and challenging what they describe as an established political consensus.
Neither side is likely to persuade the other easily.
The wider significance of the dispute is that Reform UK is no longer simply a fringe voice in Britain’s political conversation. Its policies and parliamentary activity are now receiving sustained attention from political opponents across the ideological spectrum.
That inevitably produces stronger scrutiny.
It also means Reform has greater responsibility to explain its policies in detail and respond to criticism with evidence.
At the same time, opponents have a responsibility to distinguish between legitimate criticism and labels that require careful historical and political justification.
The British electorate ultimately faces a range of competing political arguments.
The debate over Farage’s leadership, Reform’s policies and the concerns expressed by Sultana will continue to form part of that wider conversation.
Sultana’s description of Farage as a “fascist” and a “danger” represents one of the strongest forms of political criticism available. Her supporters may see the language as a necessary warning about what they regard as serious political risks. Reform supporters are likely to regard it as an unfair and exaggerated attack.
The disagreement cannot be resolved simply by repeating either description.
The more important task is to examine the evidence, the policies and the political record behind the competing claims.
As Britain’s political landscape becomes more fragmented, arguments between figures such as Sultana and Farage are likely to become increasingly prominent.
Their clash reflects a deeper struggle over the country’s future direction: how immigration should be managed, how workers should be protected, how much power government should exercise, and what role national sovereignty should play.
Those questions will not disappear.
And neither will the political disagreement over how Britain should answer them.