https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6eD6B6Hf1A

 

Earlier this month, tech billionaire Elon Musk signalled his support for the co-founder of the English Defence League (EDL) and called for him to be released from prison.

Robinson admitted in October to contempt of court by repeating false claims against a Syrian refugee. Judge Mr Justice Johnson said at the time that his actions were not “accidental, negligent or merely reckless”.

Mr Cox also alleged that a “very senior” member of the party recently sent him a text saying that if he did not stop talking about Robinson, he would be expelled. He therefore quit, but says he still supports the party.

Mr Cox, told Express.co.uk: “When the general election was over, the writing was on the wall. I saw it happening regarding my future with the party. Zia Yusuf became Chairman. I met him in the early days at a Sunday curry lunch thanking the Reform people in London. It was quite a nice lunch, everyone was there, except Nigel, that mattered.

“I shook his hand, and he’d already made quite an inspirational speech. I thought, ‘Oh, this looks good.’ Well, that’s the last time I spoke to him, and it’s the last time that anyone in the headquarters of Reform had spoken to me.”

It was a hard decision to resign his membership, Mr Cox added, as he had given the party much of his time and commitment. He said: “I thought, ‘Hang on, what’s going on here?’ I’m 70 years of age now, and I gave up two years of my life – and bear in mind that FairFuelUK was my main reason for campaigning, and that suffered a bit because of what I was doing.”

He added that Reform UK has “gone from strength to strength”, with a YouGov poll earlier this month suggesting it is now a close contest between Labour (26%) and Reform UK (25%).

However, he added, the party has a “big problem” – its stance on Tommy Robinson.

Mr Cox said: “I was approached by several people, and my inbox is full of it, regarding Tommy Robinson. And Tommy Robinson, I didn’t know from Adam to be honest. I didn’t know who he was. I’ve never met him. I don’t know him. I don’t support him.

“But what I do support is what he’s trying to do in actually raising the profile of all of those, the grooming gangs, sorry, the rape gangs – I’m going to go straight to the point – right across the country.”

At least 1,400 children were subjected to sexual exploitation in Rotherham, one of multiple towns affected, between 1997 and 2013, according to a 2014 report by Professor Alexis Jay.

Police define grooming as group-based child sexual exploitation. There were 717 such offences reported to police in 2023 and 572 in the first nine months of 2024.

Group-based child sexual exploitation made up 17% of group-based child sexual offences and 3.7% of total child sexual abuse cases in 2023. The majority of grooming offences reported to police – 70% in 2023 and 63% in the first nine months of 2024 – were carried out by white perpetrators.

Previously unreleased figures from all 43 forces in England and Wales showed that Pakistanis are up to four times more likely to be responsible for child sex grooming offences reported to police when compared to the general population.

Mr Cox went on to say: “And I applauded, you know, everything he did trying to bring that to the attention of all of us. I don’t know about his background, I didn’t know about his background. I’ve since, obviously, learned about his background. But I think it’s irrelevant for what he’s trying to do.

“And I think he has become a political prisoner, and that’s where, unfortunately, the Reform leadership and myself part ways.”

Mr Cox went on to claim: “I was sent, by a very senior person in Reform UK, only about a week and a half ago, a text. ‘If you continue to talk about Tommy Robinson, and support him, you risk being expelled.’ And I went back to that person, and it’s a very senior person, and I said, ‘Why can’t I talk about someone who’s actually protecting our children, bringing the issue to the forefront and since actually supported by Elon Musk?’

“And that person said, ‘It’s not relevant now to us. We don’t want anything to do with him. So please cease talking about it.'”

After being asked if he thinks this instruction could have come from the very top – Mr Farage himself – Mr Cox said: “It can only have come from there. But it went via someone else also quite senior.”

He then reiterated: “I do not support Tommy Robinson. I support what he’s trying to do.” Mr Cox added that Robinson had been “put in prison for contempt of court for showing a film that explains the issue to everyone”, which is “totally and utterly wrong”.

When challenged on the fact that Robinson was in prison for contempt of court, Mr Cox said: “Yes, I agree with that. But the issue is, I think, he should have a brace on his ankle and done community service.”

“There’s some deep-seated differences,” Mr Cox added, and the party has “got rid of some very loyal people” who got the party moving. Since leaving the party, he claims to have received nearly 1,000 messages in support, but “one message out of 20 is actually quite aggressive towards me”.

He continued: “Now there’s what I call a dictatorship, and you can quote me on that. I believe Reform UK is a dictatorship, and it doesn’t allow people to think.”

Mr Cox also claimed that Mr Farage is “worshipping” Donald Trump, a convicted felon. “From my point of view, I’m not suggesting that he’s an innocent person in anything in life, but on this particular issue, I support him totally.”

When asked if Robinson could prove to be a thorn in Mr Farage’s side when he is released, Mr Cox said: “I suspect he could be, but, both of them, my recommendation is go and have a beer together somewhere quietly. If you could get somewhere quiet, where the two of you can sit down and sort this one out.”

At the suggestion that Mr Musk could join them, he added: “That’s a good one, yeah. He might be in a jet flying across the Atlantic, who knows? I don’t know where Tommy’s going go. As I say, I’m not a fan of him personally. I’m totally and utterly behind what he’s trying to do.”

On why he plans to visit Robinson in prison, Mr Cox said: “I want to hear both sides of the story… I’m going to ask him a question: ‘Why is there so much vitriol coming from Reform towards you? Can I hear it from you, the horse’s mouth, so I fully understand it?'”

The majority of UK voters do not support Robinson, with YouGov favourability analysis, which “mirrors the demographics of Great Britain and is weighted to be nationally representative”, suggesting that he has a popularity rating of 21%. A More in Common poll carried out this month found that half of Britons say that he should not be allowed to join Reform UK.

Challenged with these figures, Mr Cox said: “They don’t have to talk about Tommy Robinson. What they mustn’t do is to rubbish him. That’s my point. He doesn’t want to be part of Reform.

“He doesn’t want in any way to be part of Reform whatsoever. He just wants to be recognised that he’s actually trying to fight on this particular issue. And do you know what? If I’m Nigel Farage I’d say, ‘Tommy Robinson’s doing the good job, and he shouldn’t be in prison. He’s nothing to do with Reform, but we do support his objectives to try and bring this issue to wider popular opinion.”

A Reform UK spokesman said: “Nigel Farage is the most popular party leader in Britain. Reform UK are fully focussed on winning elections and saving Britain.”

Nigel Farage ‘Runs Reform UK Like a Dictatorship’ as Tommy Robinson Sparks ‘Deep’ Divisions

Nigel Farage is facing renewed questions about leadership, internal democracy and the direction of Reform UK as disagreements over Tommy Robinson expose tensions within the party. The dispute highlights a difficult balancing act for Farage: maintaining a clear political identity while attempting to keep together supporters with sharply different views about the British right, immigration and the boundaries of acceptable political activism.

Critics have accused Reform’s leadership of exercising excessive control over the party, arguing that dissenting voices can find themselves sidelined or pushed out. Supporters of Farage, however, may see centralised decision-making as necessary for an organisation seeking to expand rapidly and present itself as a credible alternative to the established parties.

The comparison with a dictatorship is a political accusation, not an established description of how the party operates. Nevertheless, questions about who makes decisions, how members influence policy and how disagreements are handled have become recurring issues for Reform.

Tommy Robinson’s influence has added another dimension to the debate. Although Farage has previously made clear that he does not want Robinson in Reform UK, some figures associated with the party have expressed sympathy for the activist or his supporters. That difference has exposed competing ideas about the party’s identity and the type of political movement it wants to become.

A Leadership Model Under Scrutiny

Farage has built his political career around a highly recognisable public persona and a message focused on immigration, national sovereignty and opposition to the political establishment. His ability to communicate directly with voters has been central to his appeal, particularly among people who believe the traditional parties have failed to address their concerns.

However, a party that relies heavily on one prominent leader can face difficult questions about internal accountability. If important decisions are concentrated among a small group of senior figures, local members and elected representatives may feel that their influence is limited.

Similar tensions have emerged within Reform UK before. In January 2025, ten Reform councillors in Derbyshire resigned in protest, accusing the party of becoming increasingly autocratic under Farage’s leadership. Farage rejected their criticism and argued that the councillors had been put forward by a rogue local branch, with concerns surrounding candidate vetting.

The episode demonstrated how disagreements over party organisation can quickly become public disputes about leadership and legitimacy.

For critics, the central issue is whether members have a meaningful role in shaping the party or whether decisions are ultimately determined by its leadership. For those defending Farage, strong central control can be presented as a way to maintain discipline, enforce standards and prevent local controversies from undermining the wider organisation.

Both arguments raise questions about the relationship between political efficiency and internal democracy. A party can reasonably insist on standards for its candidates, but it must also establish transparent procedures for applying those standards and handling appeals.

Tommy Robinson and the Battle Over Reform’s Identity

Robinson has long been a controversial figure in British politics. His activism has focused heavily on immigration, Islam and claims about failures by public institutions. His supporters often describe him as someone willing to raise issues they believe mainstream politicians avoid, while opponents criticise his rhetoric, methods and associations.

His relationship with Reform UK has consequently become a sensitive issue.

Farage has previously distanced himself from Robinson, arguing that he does not want the activist associated with his party. Deputy leader Richard Tice has also rejected an association with Robinson and his political circle.

However, other figures on the broader British right have expressed support for Robinson or for people who attend demonstrations organised around his causes. These differences have contributed to disagreements about whether Reform should maintain strict boundaries between electoral politics and activist movements outside the party.

The disagreement is not merely about one individual. It reflects a wider question about which voters Reform wants to attract and which political associations it considers acceptable.

A party seeking to broaden its appeal may want to attract voters who favour stricter immigration controls but reject confrontational street activism. At the same time, it may face pressure from supporters who believe that established politicians have failed to respond adequately to public concerns about immigration and integration.

Farage must therefore balance the demands of different constituencies without allowing the issue to dominate the party’s wider political programme.

Why the Divisions Run So Deep

The tensions surrounding Robinson reveal competing priorities within the political movement that Reform represents.

One group places particular emphasis on electoral credibility. From this perspective, Reform must appeal to a broad enough section of the electorate to compete in national elections. That requires careful candidate selection, disciplined messaging and a willingness to distance the party from individuals or organisations that could alienate potential supporters.

Another group places greater emphasis on confrontation with the political establishment. Supporters of this approach may believe that established parties, the media and public institutions have failed to address problems involving immigration, crime or social cohesion. They may therefore view forceful demonstrations and uncompromising rhetoric as necessary to secure attention.

These approaches can overlap, but they can also conflict.

An action that energises one part of a political movement may damage its reputation among another group of voters. A leader who condemns a controversial activist may be praised by those seeking a more disciplined party but criticised by supporters who believe the leader is abandoning people with similar concerns.

This creates a difficult strategic problem for Reform. Farage must decide where the party’s boundaries lie and then persuade members and supporters that those boundaries are consistent with its stated principles.

The challenge becomes harder when disagreements are conducted publicly, particularly on social media, where individual comments can quickly become evidence in a wider argument about the party’s direction.

Is Reform UK Too Dependent on Farage?

Farage remains the most recognisable figure associated with Reform UK. His public profile gives the party a level of visibility that many smaller political organisations struggle to achieve.

But personal leadership also brings organisational risks. When a party’s public identity is closely tied to one individual, internal disputes can become disputes about that leader’s authority. Decisions that might otherwise be treated as routine administrative matters can turn into major controversies about loyalty and control.

The issue has become more relevant as Reform has sought to expand beyond a protest movement into a party with a larger parliamentary presence, elected representatives and ambitions for government.

Running a growing political organisation requires more than effective campaigning. It involves candidate vetting, financial oversight, disciplinary procedures, policy development and relationships between national headquarters and local branches.

A centralised structure can make those processes more consistent, but excessive concentration of authority can create frustration if members believe they have little opportunity to challenge decisions.

For Reform, the question is whether its internal arrangements can evolve alongside its political ambitions. A party that wants to persuade voters it can govern the country must demonstrate that it can manage disagreements, maintain transparent procedures and hold its own leadership accountable.

The Importance of Internal Democracy

Political parties are not required to operate exactly like governments, and their constitutions differ. Leaders commonly have substantial authority over candidate selection, policy announcements and campaign strategy.

Nevertheless, internal democracy matters because parties depend on the participation of members, volunteers, donors and elected representatives. If these groups believe their contributions are ignored, the organisation risks losing experience, local support and institutional knowledge.

Clear rules can help prevent such problems. Members need to understand how disciplinary decisions are made, what standards candidates must meet and how complaints can be reviewed. Consistent procedures can also protect the leadership by reducing accusations that individuals are being punished selectively for political disagreements.

Reform’s critics have questioned whether its structures offer sufficient room for dissent. The party and its leadership have disputed some of the accusations made by former members and councillors.

It is therefore important to distinguish between documented departures and suspensions, the explanations offered by those involved and the broader interpretation that the party is authoritarian. A series of internal disputes can raise legitimate questions without proving that every criticism of the leadership is accurate.

The real test is how the organisation responds: whether it explains its decisions, follows established rules and allows disagreements to be resolved without turning every dispute into a public confrontation.

The Political Risks of the Tommy Robinson Row

The disagreement over Robinson could have consequences for Reform’s public image, particularly if it continues to overshadow the party’s positions on the economy, public services, taxation and immigration policy.

For opponents, the dispute provides an opportunity to question whether Reform can maintain a coherent political identity. They may argue that tensions over the activist reveal unresolved disagreements about the kind of movement the party wants to represent.

For Reform supporters, the same controversy may be seen as evidence that the party is confronting difficult questions that other organisations have avoided. Some may welcome Farage’s attempts to draw boundaries, while others may believe those boundaries are too restrictive.

The effect on the party will depend partly on whether the leadership can move the debate back towards its policy programme and explain its position consistently.

Farage also faces a broader challenge common to parties that grow quickly. An expanding organisation attracts people with different motivations, backgrounds and expectations. Some may be experienced political campaigners, while others may have joined because of a single issue or a desire to challenge the established political order.

Keeping such a coalition together requires a shared programme and a clear understanding of what the party will and will not accept.

Can Farage Keep the Party United?

The future of Reform’s internal relationships will depend on how effectively the leadership handles disagreement.

If the party establishes transparent procedures and communicates its decisions clearly, it may be better equipped to manage competing demands. If disputes continue to be handled through public exchanges, suspensions and accusations, the disagreements could become a persistent distraction.

Neither outcome is inevitable. Political parties often experience internal conflicts while developing their structures, particularly when they grow quickly or attract elected representatives from other organisations.

What matters is whether those conflicts lead to clearer rules and stronger institutions or deepen mistrust between the leadership and its supporters.

For Farage, the challenge is to retain the decisive leadership style that has helped define his political career while demonstrating that Reform is more than a vehicle for one individual. That means showing that its policies, organisational standards and internal procedures can withstand scrutiny.

For those who believe the party is too centralised, the question is whether members and representatives will gain meaningful opportunities to influence decisions. For those who support strong leadership, the question is whether discipline can be maintained without creating unnecessary divisions.

A Defining Test for Reform UK

The dispute involving Tommy Robinson illustrates a wider tension within Reform UK over political identity, leadership authority and the boundaries of its movement.

The accusation that Farage runs the party like a dictatorship is a forceful characterisation, but the underlying questions about internal democracy deserve to be examined through specific evidence: the party’s rules, its candidate-selection processes, its disciplinary decisions and the experiences of members who have challenged the leadership.

Likewise, the debate over Robinson is about more than personal loyalty. It concerns the distinction between campaigning on immigration, participating in electoral politics and associating with controversial activist movements.

Farage’s task is to maintain a coalition of supporters while establishing a consistent set of standards for the organisation he leads. That will require clear decisions, transparent procedures and an ability to explain why certain political associations are acceptable and others are not.

The party’s longer-term development will depend not simply on the strength of its leader’s public message, but also on whether its internal organisation can accommodate disagreement without repeatedly turning it into a crisis.

For Reform UK, the central question is whether it can combine strong leadership with credible internal accountability. The answer will shape not only the party’s relationship with Tommy Robinson’s supporters, but also its ability to present itself as a serious and durable political organisation.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.