A new survey of 2,000 voters has revealed a dramatic backlash against Labour’s plans. (Image: Getty)
Angela Rayner’s proposal for an official definition of Islamophobia would hand Reform a 100-seat majority at the expense of Labour, a poll has found.
The Deputy Prime Minister has appointed a panel to draw up a new definition to be applied across the public sector, despite fears it will prevent politicians speaking up about Asian grooming gangs.
Now a survey of 2,000 people has found that Labour polls significantly worse among voters who are told about the Islamophobia plan, with free speech campaigners already vocal in condemning the plan.
Before voters were told about the proposal, Reform polled 29 per cent, Labour 23 per cent, Conservatives 17 per cent, and the Liberal Democrats 14 per cent, reports The Telegraph.
But when the people polled were asked how they would vote if Labour brought in a definition of Islamophobia, Reform rose by one point to 30 per cent and Labour fell three points to 20 per cent.
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.
If replicated at a general election, that would be the difference between a Reform majority of 20 without the Islamophobia definition, and 106 if it were brought in.
Bringing in the definition would cause a loss of one million votes to Labour, and a fall in its seats in the Commons from 155 to 103.
The poll was carried out by J L Partners, whose founder, James Johnson, said: “This polling shows that if Labour introduces a new definition of Islamophobia, it would be like setting off a tinderbox under what remains of their working-class vote.
“With Reform nipping at Labour’s heels in hundreds of seats, that is not something they can afford.”
Critics have warned that some proposed definitions of Islamophobia would make it impossible for people to raise concerns about Asian grooming gangs.
And the Tories have accused Ms Rayner of appointing a committee with “extreme” views to come up with the official definition.
The working group – chaired by Dominic Grieve, a former Tory cabinet minister – is meeting in secret and members of the public will not be able to offer their views.
Mr Grieve has praised a 2019 report which called the discussion of “grooming gangs” an example of “anti-Muslim racism”.
Claire Coutinho, the shadow equalities minister, has said a “culture of secrecy around matters relating to race and religion” was a key factor enabling “gangs of men to groom, rape, and torture young girls with impunity”.
Last month, Baroness Casey’s report on grooming gangs found that hundreds of girls had suffered unimaginable sexual abuse in part because some in authority had not tackled the issue because they feared appearing racist.
Ministers insist the definition of Islamophobia will be written in such a way as not to stifle free speech.
The J L Partners poll of 2,035 British adults was conducted between July 16 and 18.
It found that 37 per cent of respondents felt that protections against hate speech have gone too far – while 28 per cent believed they have not gone far enough, and 19 per cent said they were at about the right level.
Some 30 per cent said protections against Islamophobia had gone too far, compared to 28 per cent who thought they had not gone far enough.
When asked to compare the issue of Islamophobia to other issues facing the Government, 54 per cent said it was relatively unimportant, with 30 per cent saying it is relatively important.
When Labour voters were asked, 45 per cent said it was relatively unimportant.
Across all voters, just 37 per cent said a definition of Islamophobia was necessary in Britain today, and 45 per cent said it was unnecessary.
Shock poll finds Angela Rayner’s Islamophobia plan will hand Nigel Farage 100 seats
A poll conducted during the debate over Angela Rayner’s proposed definition of Islamophobia suggested that the policy could have a significant effect on Labour’s support and potentially increase the number of parliamentary seats won by Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.
The survey, conducted by J L Partners in July 2025, examined how voters responded after being presented with information about Labour’s proposed approach to defining Islamophobia. According to reporting based on the poll, Reform UK’s support increased from 29 per cent to 30 per cent when respondents were asked how they would vote if Labour introduced such a definition, while Labour’s support fell from 23 per cent to 20 per cent.
A seat projection based on those figures produced the dramatic headline that Reform could move from a projected majority of around 20 seats to one of more than 100 seats.
That figure, however, needs to be understood as a poll-based scenario rather than a prediction of what will happen at the next general election. Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system means relatively small changes in national vote share can produce much larger changes in constituency results.
The issue has nevertheless become an important part of the wider political debate about Labour, Reform and the boundaries between tackling anti-Muslim hostility and protecting freedom of expression.
What did the poll actually find?
The J L Partners survey questioned 2,035 British adults between 16 and 18 July 2025.
Before respondents were given information about Labour’s proposed Islamophobia definition, the poll recorded Reform on 29 per cent, Labour on 23 per cent, the Conservatives on 17 per cent and the Liberal Democrats on 14 per cent.
After voters were presented with the proposal, Reform rose by one percentage point while Labour fell by three points. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were unchanged in the figures reported.
The survey also found that 37 per cent of respondents believed protections against hate speech had gone too far, compared with 28 per cent who thought they had not gone far enough. On Islamophobia specifically, 30 per cent said protections had gone too far, while 28 per cent said they had not gone far enough.
The poll also suggested that the issue was not among the highest priorities for many voters. Fifty-four per cent described the question of an Islamophobia definition as relatively unimportant compared with other issues facing the Government.
Those findings are significant because they suggest that the electoral effect identified by the poll depended partly on how voters interpreted the policy rather than simply on the underlying issue of religious hatred.
The proposal behind the controversy
The origins of the policy go back to February 2025, when Angela Rayner, then Deputy Prime Minister and Communities Secretary, announced the creation of a working group to develop a definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred or Islamophobia.
The Government said the group was being established against a backdrop of record levels of anti-Muslim hate incidents and that its purpose was to provide a clearer framework for understanding and tackling religiously motivated hatred.
The working group was chaired by Dominic Grieve KC and included representatives from Muslim communities, independent experts and academics. It subsequently conducted a call for evidence during June and July 2025.
The policy eventually adopted by the Government was published in March 2026.
Importantly, it is a non-statutory definition.
That means it does not itself create a new criminal offence, change sentencing rules or make criticism of Islam illegal. The Government says the definition is intended to help organisations recognise and address anti-Muslim hostility while protecting lawful debate.
The definition adopted by Government
The Government’s final definition focuses on intentional criminal acts such as violence, vandalism, harassment and intimidation directed at Muslims because of their religion, as well as certain forms of prejudicial stereotyping and unlawful discrimination.
It also explicitly states that the framework is designed to protect individuals rather than a religion.
The accompanying guidance says that lawful criticism of religious beliefs, discussion of religious practices and raising concerns in the public interest remain protected.
This distinction is central to the political controversy.
Supporters argue that a clearer definition can help public authorities identify discrimination and hostility more consistently.
Critics have questioned whether such definitions could nevertheless influence public debate, particularly when discussions involve contentious subjects such as extremism, religious practices or crimes involving people from particular ethnic or religious backgrounds.
The Government’s position is that the definition does not prevent legitimate debate.
Why Reform could benefit from the controversy
The 2025 poll suggested that the issue had the potential to become politically significant because Reform UK was already competing strongly with Labour among some groups of voters.
The party has frequently attempted to present itself as a defender of freedom of speech and as an alternative to what it describes as established-party approaches to cultural and social questions.
A controversy involving the definition of Islamophobia therefore gives Reform an opportunity to frame the debate around free expression, political correctness and the treatment of contentious subjects.
That does not necessarily mean voters who oppose the definition would automatically support Reform. The poll itself only measures the response of the surveyed population under a particular scenario.
Nevertheless, the movement in the poll illustrates how policies concerning identity, religion and speech can interact with wider political dissatisfaction.
The importance of the first-past-the-post system
The headline claim about “100 seats” is particularly striking because the UK does not allocate parliamentary seats directly according to national vote share.
Under first-past-the-post, each constituency is contested separately. The candidate receiving the most votes wins the seat, regardless of whether that candidate secures a majority of votes cast.
This can produce large differences between a party’s share of the national vote and its number of MPs.
Consequently, a relatively small movement in support can have a disproportionately large impact if it occurs in constituencies where two or more parties are closely matched.
That is why a three-point fall in Labour’s national support, combined with a one-point increase for Reform, could generate a much larger change in a seat projection.
But such a calculation should not be treated as an election forecast.
Subsequent polling demonstrates just how sensitive these models can be. For example, a YouGov MRP model reported in September 2026 produced a very different parliamentary picture, putting Labour on 241 seats, the Conservatives on 130 and Reform on 123.
Another September 2026 analysis examining tactical voting produced yet another scenario, showing Reform’s projected seat total falling substantially if voters coordinated behind the strongest anti-Reform candidate in individual constituencies.
These contrasting models demonstrate that parliamentary projections depend on assumptions about turnout, tactical voting, constituency-level support and the distribution of votes.
The issue has moved beyond the original proposal
There is also an important chronological point.
The 2025 poll examined a proposed definition. By March 2026, the Government had adopted its non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility. The policy therefore developed considerably after the poll was conducted.
The Government now describes the definition as a tool for government departments and other organisations to understand, measure, prevent and address anti-Muslim hostility. It has also encouraged organisations across different sectors to consider whether and how they might use it.
Not every public body has adopted it.
For example, a Freedom of Information response published in August 2026 showed that the Groceries Code Adjudicator had not separately adopted the definition and was not proposing to incorporate it into its policies or training material at that time.
The Security Industry Authority similarly said in August that it had not adopted the definition and was not actively considering adoption at that point.
These examples underline that the Government’s framework is not automatically binding across every organisation.
A wider challenge for Labour
For Labour, the political challenge is broader than the definition itself.
The party has to balance efforts to tackle religious hatred with concerns about free speech and public debate. At the same time, it faces competition from Reform among voters who are dissatisfied with mainstream political parties.
The 2025 poll suggested that the Islamophobia debate could become one of several issues capable of shifting support between Labour and Reform.
But it would be misleading to treat that single issue as responsible for Reform’s broader electoral position.
Voting intentions are influenced by numerous factors, including taxation, immigration, public services, the economy, crime, leadership and local constituency politics.
The later polling evidence also demonstrates that Reform’s projected parliamentary representation has not followed a single fixed trajectory. Different assumptions have produced dramatically different outcomes.
What the poll really tells us
The most significant finding from the original survey may therefore be less about the precise number of seats and more about how sensitive political support can be to debates over controversial cultural policies.
The poll suggested that explaining Labour’s proposed Islamophobia definition to voters was associated with a modest increase in Reform support and a larger fall in Labour support within that survey.
The accompanying seat model then translated those changes into a much larger parliamentary scenario.
That does not establish that the policy would actually cause Reform to win 100 seats at a future election. Nor does it demonstrate that voters will continue to respond to the issue in the same way after the Government’s final definition was published.
Instead, it provides a snapshot of public reaction at a particular moment in July 2025.
The subsequent adoption of a non-statutory definition in March 2026 has changed the policy landscape. The Government maintains that the definition protects Muslims from hostility while safeguarding lawful criticism, debate and free expression.
The political question remains whether voters accept that distinction.
For Labour, the debate illustrates the difficulty of addressing religious hatred while maintaining confidence among voters concerned about freedom of expression. For Reform, it provides another opportunity to challenge Labour on questions of speech, identity and political priorities.
But the claim that Angela Rayner’s plan will “hand Nigel Farage 100 seats” should ultimately be read for what it is: a headline built around a specific polling scenario, not a guaranteed electoral outcome.
As Britain’s political landscape continues to fragment, the eventual distribution of parliamentary seats will depend on national vote shares, constituency-level contests, tactical voting, turnout and many issues beyond the Islamophobia debate alone.