Ranvir Singh and Kate Garraway’s comments about Reform UK led to viewers turning the programme off (Image: ITV)
Good Morning Britain viewers have switched off the ITV programme after taking issue with its coverage of Reform UK, with presenters Ranvir Singh and Kate Garraway facing criticism over their lengthy discussion of the party. During Friday’s (October 16) instalment of the show, the presenters addressed ITV’s year-long undercover investigation into Reform UK, which led to the party suspending councillors accused of expressing racist, sexist or extremist views. The investigation recorded Alan Feeney, deputy mayor of Solihull, referring to Asian homeowners as “parasites”.
It followed Thursday’s programme, where the investigation was also the show’s main news story. Today, several viewers took issue with how the story was discussed on air, with complaints focusing on the length of the presenters’ assessment.
Others questioned why ITV had focused its investigation on Reform rather than examining other political parties, while also slamming the programme for not presenting a balanced argument.
Taking to X with their complaints, one fumed: “Deep reporting by Ranvir & Kate those well known investigative reporters – have spent 20 mins PRIMETIME on the reform ITV undercover story. Congrats @GMB who knew!!
“Now can we do similar with Labour, Greens Henry Novak mother, people being sent to prison for year for hurty posts.”
Another said: “Hey @GMB when can we expect the year long investigation into Labour? Or the Greens?
“You know.. where all the real racism and crooked s**t is going on, maybe Ranvir and Kate could bring that up every morning?”
A third commented: “Another friday Turn on good morning Britain See Reform bashing again from Ranvir & Kate (Every Friday they bash reform) Switch back off. Not heard at all about Labour and the man city scandal.”
“This is getting embarrassing now Ranvir and Kate you both sound pretty desperate and sad really,” added a fourth as someone else suggested the two hosts should be “waving Labour flags”.
Another weighed in: “Kate and Ranvir – Labour party lovers – biased and boring.”
An additional viewer echoed: “This segment is ridiculous. No balance and just an anti reform pile on. Ranvir seems to be leading the charge on demonising parties.”
In the run-up to the 2026 local election, Feeney was filmed undercover with Reform local election candidates Jamie Campbell and Chris Whelan talking about where a local mosque might be being built.
Campbell said: “There’s got to be a way of stopping that. Like, go and buy some pork chops… we’ll bury it in the ground.”
Other footage showed Wheelan filmed talking about a female Reform candidate, where he said: “F*** me, if she was my daughter, it would still be bath night on a Thursday… Time for your bath… I’ll wash you properly this time. Yes. Dirty b******d.”
In response, Feeney said: “Oh god, we’re all going to end up in the papers.”
Following ITV’s investigation, Whelan announced he had resigned from Reform “on personal and health grounds”. Meanwhile, Feeney announced he has left Reform “for personal reasons”.
Good Morning Britain Viewers Switch Off as Ranvir Singh and Kate Garraway Spark Outrage
ITV breakfast programme Good Morning Britain has faced a wave of viewer complaints after presenters Ranvir Singh and Kate Garraway devoted substantial airtime to an undercover investigation into Reform UK. Some viewers accused the programme of political bias, with several taking to social media to say they had switched off.
The reaction followed the broadcast on Friday, 16 October 2026, when the presenters discussed ITV’s year-long investigation into Reform UK and the conduct of some of its councillors and candidates. The programme had also covered the investigation the previous day, prompting further complaints from viewers who felt the story was receiving too much attention. <Cite refs={[“turn533929search0″,”turn533929search4”]} />
The dispute has created an uncomfortable dilemma for the broadcaster. Investigations into alleged racism and extremist remarks by political representatives are clearly matters of public interest. At the same time, viewers expect breakfast television to distinguish between reporting the evidence, challenging politicians and offering political commentary.
The criticism directed at Singh and Garraway demonstrates how quickly a news discussion can become a debate about the broadcaster itself.
Viewers Accuse the Programme of One-Sided Coverage
Following Friday’s broadcast, some viewers complained on X that Good Morning Britain had devoted too much time to the Reform investigation while failing to apply equivalent scrutiny to other political parties.
Several posts questioned why ITV had not conducted a comparable year-long investigation into Labour, the Conservatives or the Green Party. Others accused the programme of being disproportionately critical of Reform and argued that the presenters were not giving the party’s supporters a fair hearing.
One viewer complained that the programme had spent around 20 minutes discussing the investigation, while another asked when viewers could expect similar reporting about Labour or the Greens. Other comments accused the presenters of political bias and described the discussion as repetitive. <Cite refs={[“turn533929search0″,”turn533929search4”]} />
These comments illustrate the frustration expressed by some viewers, but they do not establish that the programme’s entire audience shared that view. Social-media reactions are self-selected, and the available reports do not provide representative audience research showing how many people switched off or whether the broadcast caused a measurable decline in viewing figures.
Nevertheless, the complaints raise a question broadcasters regularly face: how should a programme allocate time to a story that is politically significant but also highly contentious?
For critics, the answer is that ITV should examine other parties with comparable intensity. For those defending the coverage, the investigation was a substantial news story involving elected representatives and a major political party, making extended discussion understandable.
The distinction between those positions depends on the evidence presented, the questions asked and whether the programme gave viewers enough information to understand the controversy.
What Was the Undercover Investigation About?
The ITV investigation examined Reform UK councillors, candidates and people working within the party’s political operation. According to ITV’s reporting, undercover recordings captured racist remarks, misogynistic comments and statements advocating extreme violence.
One of the people filmed was Alan Feeney, a Solihull councillor and former deputy mayor who was recorded making derogatory comments about Asian people. The footage also included Reform figures discussing a possible mosque development and making offensive remarks about a female candidate.
Chris Whelan, another Solihull councillor elected for Reform, was recorded making sexually aggressive comments about a woman. Both Feeney and Whelan subsequently announced that they had left the party, citing personal reasons. <Cite refs={[“turn533929search0″,”turn533929search4”]} />
These are serious allegations because elected representatives are expected to treat constituents with respect and to exercise public responsibilities without discrimination.
It is also important to distinguish the conduct of individuals from the views of an entire political party. The recordings do not establish that every Reform councillor, member or voter shares the opinions expressed by those filmed. They do, however, raise questions about the people selected to represent the party and the procedures used to assess their suitability.
The investigation also examined conversations within Reform’s Westminster operation, including how party officials discussed allegations concerning candidates. That element made the story about more than individual comments: it raised questions about how the organisation responds when potentially damaging behaviour comes to light.
Those issues provide a clear public-interest justification for reporting the investigation. The separate question is how ITV should present the material and whether its discussion programmes allow sufficient room for challenge and explanation.
Why Ranvir Singh and Kate Garraway Came Under Fire
Singh and Garraway became the focus of criticism because they were presenting the discussion when some viewers felt the investigation had already received extensive coverage.
The complaints were not limited to objections to the subject itself. Some viewers argued that the presenters appeared to share a particular political position, while others said the discussion lacked balance because it did not give comparable attention to alleged misconduct involving other parties.
Such criticisms are familiar in political broadcasting. When presenters challenge a party or politician, supporters may interpret persistent questioning as hostility. Conversely, viewers who believe a politician is avoiding accountability may regard the same approach as necessary scrutiny.
Neither interpretation can be established simply by counting angry social-media posts.
A fair assessment would require examining the broadcast in full: the questions put to guests, the evidence explained to viewers, the responses offered by Reform and whether relevant counterarguments were addressed. It would also be necessary to distinguish a presenter’s personal opinion from the role of questioning claims and clarifying facts.
The available reports document complaints from some viewers, but they do not establish that Singh or Garraway deliberately sought to promote a political party or damage another. Accusations of bias should therefore be treated as viewers’ interpretations rather than proven facts.
Should ITV Investigate Other Political Parties?
The demand for comparable investigations is one of the strongest themes in the backlash.
Supporters of Reform argue that if racist or extremist conduct exists within other political organisations, those parties should receive the same level of scrutiny. That is a reasonable general principle: no political party should be exempt from investigation because of its history, size or position in government.
However, equal standards do not necessarily require identical investigations at the same time. Journalists must decide which allegations warrant investigation, what evidence is available and where undercover methods may be justified by the public interest.
The existence of possible misconduct in another party would not invalidate recordings obtained during an investigation into Reform. Equally, an investigation into Reform should not prevent journalists from examining credible allegations involving Labour, the Conservatives or other organisations.
The more important test is consistency. Are similar standards applied when allegations concern different political parties? Are the methods proportionate? Are recordings presented with sufficient context? Do those accused have a meaningful opportunity to respond?
Those questions offer a more useful way to assess media impartiality than assuming that any extended investigation is automatically evidence of political hostility.
Reform’s Response and the Issue of Vetting
Reform UK has faced questions about its candidate-selection process following the revelations. As the party expands its representation, its ability to recruit suitable candidates and respond to misconduct allegations has become increasingly important.
Farage has questioned the undercover investigation’s methods and argued that political opponents and established institutions are hostile to Reform. The party has also said it does not tolerate racism and has taken action in cases involving inappropriate behaviour.
The challenge is to demonstrate that those commitments are reflected in its procedures. Candidate vetting cannot predict every private conversation, but it can establish expectations, examine relevant public records and provide a process for investigating complaints.
The party must also explain how it decides whether an individual should be suspended, removed or allowed to remain after an apology. Clear and consistent standards would help voters distinguish genuine accountability from decisions made primarily in response to negative publicity.
For broadcasters, this is a substantive political issue rather than simply a dispute about presentation style. Viewers can reasonably expect journalists to examine both the evidence against individuals and the organisation’s response.
Did Viewers Really Switch Off?
The headline claim that viewers “switch off” reflects the complaints reported after the broadcast, but it should not be confused with verified audience data.
People posting online may genuinely have stopped watching. Others may have criticised the programme while continuing to view it. Without reliable ratings figures or representative audience research, it is not possible to quantify the effect on the programme’s audience.
Nor do a number of angry comments necessarily establish that the presenters have lost the confidence of the wider viewing public.
What can be established is that the coverage prompted a visible dispute over political balance, the length of the discussion and whether ITV should apply similar investigative attention to other parties. Those complaints form part of the wider debate about trust in television news.
For a breakfast programme, the challenge is especially difficult. Its audience includes people seeking a quick summary of the day’s events as well as viewers who want deeper political discussion. An extended investigation may be justified by its importance, but producers must still make sure that the presentation is clear, proportionate and informative.
A Bigger Debate About Trust in the Media
The row surrounding Good Morning Britain reflects a broader problem facing British journalism: audiences increasingly interpret coverage through their existing views of political parties and institutions.
For some viewers, a sustained investigation into Reform is evidence that the media is scrutinising a party challenging the political establishment. For others, the same coverage appears to demonstrate that broadcasters are giving Reform disproportionate negative attention.
The way to assess those competing claims is to examine the actual reporting rather than assume that either criticism or praise proves impartiality.
ITV must explain why the investigation was in the public interest, present evidence accurately and allow those criticised to respond. Reform must address the substance of the allegations while retaining the right to challenge reporting methods it considers unfair. Viewers, meanwhile, should be able to distinguish between verified findings, the claims of political actors and reactions expressed on social media.
The controversy is unlikely to be resolved simply by moving on to another headline. The questions it raises—about candidate standards, investigative journalism and political balance—will remain relevant whenever a broadcaster exposes serious misconduct within a political organisation.
For Singh and Garraway, the reported backlash highlights how closely political discussions are scrutinised by viewers who are sensitive to perceived bias. For ITV, the task is to show that its coverage is driven by evidence and public interest rather than by the identity of the party under investigation.
And for Reform UK, the central issue remains the conduct of the individuals recorded and how the party responds to it.
Ultimately, the strongest way to restore confidence is not to dismiss every complaint as partisan or to accept every accusation of bias as fact. It is to examine the evidence, explain editorial decisions and apply consistent standards to political parties across the spectrum.