A would-be Reform UK MP told an undercover reporter Muslims could not be British and asylum seekers should be put in “concentration camps”. The comments were recorded as part of an undercover investigation by ITV that has already seen Reform accused of “appalling behaviour” and “extreme racism”. Reform has said it had opened investigations where activists or members had “clearly behaved inappropriately”, adding there was “no room for racism” in the party.

In footage due to be broadcast on Sunday, a Reform activist and aspiring MP described himself as “pretty hardline about Islam”.

He said: “If a Muslim’s prepared to de-convert, I’m happy.

“But if they want to remain faithful to Islam, then this would be, I would have disagreements, especially with, um, I mean, as far as I understand, (Reform home affairs spokesman) Zia Yusuf is a Muslim… To me… you cannot be a Muslim and British… It’s like oil and water.”

Discussing people crossing the Channel in small boats, the same activist said: “In the first week of election, build concentration camps, and everyone who comes across on the Channel, you’re in there.”

Other footage included a Reform councillor saying the party’s board was “hardline”, adding they held views that would result in their expulsion if expressed publicly.

Excerpts from the investigation released earlier in the week included councillors and candidates within Reform using racist language.

In one excerpt, black children were referred to as “animals”, while in another, a Reform member said his area had become “infested” with Asian families.

In a separate clip, Reform MP Sarah Pochin described the party as “chauvinistic”, adding: “They just exclude you if you’re a woman.”

Labour Party chairwoman Bridget Phillipson said Nigel Farage’s response to the revelations showed he was “completely unfit to lead”.

She said: “Bad apples don’t fall far from the tree. The sleaze, scandals and appalling revelations of racism and rank misogyny piling up by the day go right to the top of Reform UK.

“Nigel Farage is incapable of taking responsibility and getting his house in order because he himself shares culpability.”

Speaking earlier in the week, Mr Farage said that while Reform carries out vetting “you can’t vet people for what they say in the future”.

He added: “I put it to you, if you went and spoke to hundreds of Conservative councillors and tried to provoke them you would find all sorts of things and all sorts of comments said.”

In a statement to ITV, Reform said: “Reform UK has improved and prioritised its vetting procedures, but from time to time, a handful of individuals who do not share our values will initially make it through vetting.

“This is the same for all organisations. However good the vetting, one cannot vet a future comment.

Andy Burnham’s Latest Move Sparks Fury – ‘Nobody With a Job Will Ever Vote Labour Again’

Andy Burnham has sparked a fresh political debate after setting out an ambitious programme that promises a greater role for the state in Britain’s economy, expanded public services and a fundamental change to the country’s relationship with Europe.

The Prime Minister’s plans have prompted questions about how Labour intends to pay for its proposals, what they could mean for businesses and working households, and whether the government can deliver its promises without placing additional pressure on public finances.

Burnham unveiled his vision at Labour’s annual conference in September, promising what he described as a new direction for Britain. His programme includes bringing essential services under greater public control, creating a National Care Service, expanding social housing and reducing some household costs.

Supporters say the proposals could address long-standing problems involving housing affordability, social care and living standards. Critics, however, warn that ambitious public spending commitments must be backed by credible funding plans and careful economic management.

The dispute has created an opportunity for opposition parties to question whether Labour’s programme will benefit working people or leave taxpayers facing difficult choices in the years ahead.

Burnham’s plan for a different Britain

In his conference speech, Burnham argued that Britain needed a break with the economic policies pursued over recent decades. He criticised deindustrialisation, privatisation and austerity, arguing that too much power had been concentrated in the hands of private interests while many communities had been left behind.

He promised to give the state a greater role in housing, water and energy, with the stated aim of making essential services more affordable.

The government also intends to expand council housing, reduce the need for rough sleeping and establish a National Care Service designed to improve support for older people and those requiring long-term care.

Burnham has presented these proposals as part of a broader effort to tackle the cost of living and make public services more reliable. He has also announced plans to cap single bus fares at £2 across England during 2027, alongside a proposed reduction in VAT on electricity bills.

The policies are intended to address concerns that many households struggle to cover basic expenses despite working and contributing to the economy.

However, the scale of the programme means that questions about financing, implementation and long-term costs are likely to remain central to the political debate.

Why working households are watching closely

For millions of employees, the most immediate concern is whether government policy will leave them with more money at the end of each month.

Households have faced pressure from housing costs, energy bills, food prices and other essential expenses. Many workers feel that rising living costs have made it increasingly difficult to save, buy a home or provide financial security for their families.

Burnham’s government argues that reducing the cost of essential services could ease some of these pressures. Lower bus fares, cheaper electricity bills and better access to housing could provide practical benefits if the policies are implemented effectively.

Yet critics question whether the promised savings will be sufficient to offset other economic pressures. They also argue that public spending commitments must be assessed alongside taxation, borrowing and the potential effects on private investment.

The question is particularly important for small businesses and self-employed workers, who may be concerned about the cumulative effect of taxes, employment costs and regulatory changes.

There is no evidence that every working person will abandon Labour over the proposals. Voting decisions depend on a wide range of issues, including wages, public services, housing, immigration and trust in political leadership.

Nevertheless, the relationship between Labour’s economic programme and the financial circumstances of working households is likely to become an important test of the government’s popularity.

The National Care Service controversy

One of Burnham’s most significant proposals is the creation of a National Care Service to improve support for older people and those who require long-term assistance.

Social care has been a persistent problem for successive governments. Families frequently struggle to find suitable care, local authorities face financial constraints and hospitals can experience pressure when patients cannot be discharged because appropriate support is unavailable.

Burnham argues that a more coordinated system could improve care standards, support families and reduce pressure on the NHS.

However, creating a national service would require decisions about funding, staffing, eligibility and the relationship between central government and local authorities.

The Prime Minister has also acknowledged that financing improvements to social care will require difficult choices. His conference speech referred to the possibility of weakening the pensions triple lock, a politically sensitive issue because millions of pensioners depend on annual increases in the state pension.

That proposal could create tension between the government’s objective of improving care and its commitment to protecting older people’s incomes.

For working households, the issue is equally significant. Many people provide unpaid care to relatives while trying to maintain employment, and better support could help them remain in work. But the final financial arrangements will determine who pays for the service and how its benefits are distributed.

Public ownership and the business debate

Burnham’s plans to bring housing, water and energy under greater public control have also generated debate about the future role of the state in the economy.

Supporters argue that essential services should be run primarily in the public interest rather than according to the priorities of private shareholders. They believe greater public control could improve accountability and make it easier to pursue long-term investment.

Critics question whether public ownership would necessarily produce lower bills or better services. They argue that the government would need substantial capital, competent management and clear accountability arrangements to ensure that publicly controlled organisations perform effectively.

The transition itself could also be complicated. Depending on the model chosen, the government might need to negotiate with existing operators, establish new governance structures or find ways to finance investment without undermining its fiscal commitments.

For businesses, the wider concern is whether policy changes create a stable environment for investment. Companies need predictable rules, access to finance and confidence that major decisions will not be repeatedly reversed.

The government insists that its programme is designed to support growth and improve essential services. Opposition parties are likely to scrutinise whether the proposed arrangements can deliver those objectives while keeping public borrowing under control.

Europe and the Brexit debate return

Burnham has also pledged to seek a new relationship with the European Union, arguing that Brexit has not delivered the level of control or economic performance that supporters promised.

His government wants to explore closer cooperation with European partners in areas where ministers believe it could benefit Britain. The Prime Minister has also reopened discussion about the country’s longer-term relationship with Europe, creating fresh controversy over the future direction of Brexit.

Supporters of closer cooperation argue that reducing barriers could help exporters, improve economic relations and strengthen Britain’s position internationally.

Critics fear that closer alignment could limit the country’s freedom to set its own rules or reopen disagreements that dominated British politics for years.

Any major change would require detailed negotiations and would need to be assessed against its effects on trade, employment, regulation and migration.

For working people, the practical question is whether a revised relationship with Europe would create better economic opportunities and improve living standards. Political arguments about sovereignty are important, but the economic consequences will ultimately depend on the agreements reached and how they affect businesses and households.

Can Labour afford its promises?

The central challenge facing Burnham is how to finance a broad programme of reform while maintaining confidence in the public finances.

The government has said it intends to follow its fiscal rules and reduce borrowing and debt. Burnham has argued that investment in housing, energy and social care could generate longer-term savings by reducing pressure on other public services.

For example, better social care could help some patients leave hospital when medically ready, while additional council housing could reduce reliance on expensive temporary accommodation and housing support.

However, the financial benefits of such policies are not automatic. New services require money, construction projects can take years to complete, and projected savings may depend on how effectively the reforms are implemented.

The government will need to demonstrate that its spending plans are supported by realistic cost estimates and that promised savings can be achieved without undermining service quality.

Taxation is another important part of the discussion. Any decision to raise revenue, change existing tax arrangements or alter pension increases could affect different groups of workers, businesses and retirees in different ways.

That makes transparency essential. Voters need to understand not only what the government intends to provide but also how it will pay for those commitments.

The political consequences for Burnham

The scale of Burnham’s agenda creates opportunities as well as risks.

If the government can reduce household bills, improve housing availability and make social care more reliable, it could demonstrate that its reforms produce tangible benefits.

If the policies prove more expensive than expected or fail to deliver visible improvements, critics will argue that the programme has created unrealistic expectations.

The debate is also likely to expose differences within Labour itself. Some supporters may want faster and more extensive public-sector reform, while others could be concerned about borrowing, taxation and the political consequences of changes to pensions.

Opposition parties will seek to use these disagreements to challenge the government’s economic credibility. However, the claim that nobody with a job will vote Labour again is an exaggerated political slogan rather than a conclusion supported by evidence.

Working voters are not a single group with identical priorities. Some may place the greatest importance on taxes and business conditions, while others may focus on wages, public services, childcare, housing or the cost of commuting.

The government’s ability to address those competing concerns will help determine how voters assess its performance.

A defining test for Labour’s economic programme

Burnham’s plans represent an ambitious attempt to change how Britain provides essential services and supports households. They also raise difficult questions about affordability, public ownership and the balance between economic growth and public spending.

For working people, the most important measure will be whether the policies improve everyday life. Lower bills, more affordable housing and reliable social care could make a meaningful difference, but those benefits will need to be delivered in practice rather than promised in speeches.

For businesses and taxpayers, the key issues will be whether the government maintains a predictable economic environment, controls public borrowing and provides clear explanations of how its programme will be funded.

The coming period will therefore be important for Burnham’s government. Its economic strategy will be judged not simply by the scale of its ambitions but by the results it achieves, the costs it imposes and the extent to which ordinary households feel better off.

The claim that working voters will never support Labour again may make a striking headline, but the political reality is more complicated. Whether Labour retains the confidence of working households will depend on its record in government, the state of the economy and whether voters believe its promises have translated into tangible improvements in their lives.