This he called “cancel culture” and “undemocratic”. Mr Habib added: “It’s like, fine, it’s a commercial enterprise. They can do whatever the hell they wish to.

“And when they cancelled me, I did say, ‘You can cancel me, [but] you’re not going to stop me.’

“I am going back to being on my front foot with all things political.

Mr Habib also alleged that Talk TV had “cancelled” him.

Daily Expresso host, JJ Anisiobi, said, referring to Mike Graham: “Talk [TV], where they… used to have a guy who thought you could grow concrete, they’re calling you a lunatic. That makes sense? Goodness gracious.”

Mr Habib said: “But I’m very grateful to Talk [TV] for coming around and giving me the opportunity to be on their various shows.

“And I’ve been on. Kevin’s [O’Sullivan] obviously great, but I’ve been on with Jeremy Kyle and others now, and Andre Walker and maybe others, yeah.”

I Was Banned from GB News and Talk TV – One Star Sent Me a Shocking Text

Ben Habib has made a striking claim about his relationship with two of Britain’s most prominent right-leaning television broadcasters, saying he was effectively shut out by GB News and Talk TV after becoming an increasingly vocal critic of Reform UK.

The former Reform UK deputy leader, who now leads Advance UK, made the allegations during an appearance on The Express podcast, Daily Expresso. Habib described his experience as an example of what he sees as growing intolerance of political disagreement within parts of Britain’s alternative media.

According to Habib, his relationship with GB News changed dramatically after he announced the launch of Advance UK. He recalled appearing on Martin Daubney’s programme in June 2025 to discuss his new political project.

He said that appearance was effectively his last.

“ I announced it that day and that was the last time I was on,” Habib said, arguing that GB News had increasingly become closely associated with Nigel Farage and Reform UK.

Habib described the situation as “cancel culture” and said he regarded the decision as a political challenge rather than a personal defeat. He argued that being removed from a television platform would not prevent him from continuing to campaign.

His comments have opened another window into the increasingly complicated relationships between Britain’s right-wing political parties and the broadcasters that have helped shape political debate on the right.

From Reform deputy to political rival

Habib’s background makes the dispute particularly significant.

He previously served as deputy leader of Reform UK and was closely associated with Nigel Farage and the party’s political project.

His departure from Reform, however, created a sharp political separation.

Habib subsequently established Advance UK, presenting it as an alternative political organisation. That placed him in direct competition, at least in political terms, with Reform.

His criticism of Reform became increasingly open.

That, Habib believes, changed how some broadcasters treated him.

He claimed GB News would not tolerate sustained criticism of Reform UK and suggested that his new political role made it difficult for him to appear on the channel.

However, the allegation should be understood as Habib’s account of events. A decision by a broadcaster not to book a particular political figure can have multiple possible explanations, including editorial choices, scheduling, programming priorities or disagreements over content.

Habib nevertheless believes the political dimension was central.

“You can cancel me”

Rather than presenting the cancellation as the end of his political career, Habib said he regarded it as evidence that his arguments were beginning to attract attention.

He recalled telling the broadcaster that it could cancel him but could not stop him.

The distinction is important.

Television exposure can give politicians a large audience, but political organisations can increasingly communicate through social media, podcasts, online video and direct membership campaigns.

Habib claimed that Advance UK had built tens of thousands of members and argued that the party was becoming increasingly visible through other forms of media.

His message was therefore straightforward: losing access to one broadcaster did not necessarily mean losing access to the public.

The Talk TV allegation

Habib made an even more striking allegation about Talk TV.

He claimed that one presenter had described him as “a lunatic” and told him that because he was challenging Reform, efforts would be made to prevent him from continuing to appear.

That is a serious claim, but it is important to distinguish Habib’s recollection from an independently established fact.

The comments were presented by Habib during the podcast discussion, and the precise circumstances surrounding the alleged exchange were not independently established in the available reporting.

Habib himself also acknowledged that he had continued to appear on Talk TV programmes.

He specifically mentioned appearances involving Kevin O’Sullivan, Jeremy Kyle and Andre Walker.

That detail adds an important complication to the story.

Rather than describing himself as completely excluded from Talk TV, Habib described a relationship in which he believed certain doors had been closed while others remained open.

That suggests the dispute may have been more complicated than a simple blanket ban.

A divided political media landscape

The controversy comes at a time when Britain’s political media landscape is becoming increasingly fragmented.

Traditional broadcasters compete with podcasts, YouTube channels, social-media commentators and political organisations that can communicate directly with supporters.

GB News and Talk TV occupy an important position in that environment, particularly among audiences interested in politics outside the traditional BBC, ITV and Sky News ecosystem.

But the political right itself is no longer represented by a single movement.

Reform UK has grown into a major political organisation, while Conservatives, independent figures and newer groups such as Advance UK compete for voters and attention.

That creates an unusual situation for broadcasters.

A presenter can invite one politician to discuss an issue while simultaneously facing pressure from competing political organisations.

The question of who receives airtime can therefore become politically significant.

The Reform factor

Habib’s central accusation is that his opposition to Reform UK is the reason his access to some platforms changed.

He has argued that broadcasters that once provided space for alternative voices are becoming increasingly aligned with particular political movements.

His criticism is particularly focused on GB News.

He said the channel had become, in his words, too closely associated with Farage and Reform.

That interpretation is contested by the broader nature of the channel’s programming, which has featured a range of presenters and political perspectives.

Nevertheless, Habib’s argument reflects a wider debate about political independence in Britain’s television and online media.

Can a broadcaster be strongly associated with a particular political audience while still providing meaningful space for internal disagreement?

And how should a broadcaster handle politicians who were previously allies but later become political opponents?

These questions have become increasingly relevant as the British right has become more divided.

The history of cancellations

Habib’s story also sits within a wider history of disputes involving British political broadcasters and presenters.

GB News has faced regulatory scrutiny from Ofcom over various broadcasts, while Talk TV has also been subject to complaints and regulatory processes. Ofcom maintains records of broadcasting complaints and investigations involving both broadcasters.

However, regulatory scrutiny is not the same thing as political censorship.

Broadcasters operate under editorial policies and broadcasting rules, while presenters and contributors can be removed, suspended or simply not booked for a variety of reasons.

The challenge is determining when an editorial decision reflects normal broadcasting management and when a contributor’s political position has genuinely become the deciding factor.

Habib believes his experience belongs in the second category.

The surprising contradiction

Perhaps the most interesting part of Habib’s story is that he has not disappeared from television.

Despite claiming that certain opportunities were closed to him, he has continued to appear in political discussions.

That makes his situation different from a complete media blackout.

Instead, it illustrates how political figures can move between different platforms depending on their relationships with broadcasters, presenters and political organisations.

A politician may lose regular access to one programme but gain an audience through podcasts or alternative media.

In that sense, Habib’s experience reflects the changing nature of political communication.

Television remains influential, but it is no longer the only route to a national audience.

A battle over the political right

At the centre of the dispute is something larger than one politician’s television appearances.

The British right is experiencing a period of internal competition.

Reform UK has sought to position itself as a major electoral force. Conservatives continue to operate as an established political party. New organisations and independent politicians are attempting to attract voters who feel that neither traditional party represents them.

Habib’s Advance UK is part of that increasingly crowded landscape.

His dispute with GB News and Talk TV therefore has a political dimension because media exposure can affect how quickly a new political organisation establishes itself.

But the underlying competition is ultimately about voters.

Political parties must persuade people to support their programmes, while broadcasters must decide which voices and stories they believe are relevant to their audiences.

“They haven’t stopped me”

For Habib, the central message is that being denied regular access to a particular television platform has not ended his political ambitions.

He insists that Advance UK will continue to develop and that he will continue challenging Reform UK.

His comments also reveal the personal stakes involved in the fragmentation of Britain’s political right.

Former allies can become rivals.

Broadcasters that once provided a platform can become less accessible.

And politicians who previously appeared together can find themselves competing for the same voters.

Whether Habib’s interpretation of his television experience is ultimately accepted by the broadcasters involved, his allegations have added another chapter to the continuing debate about political media, editorial independence and free expression in Britain.

The most revealing aspect may be the fact that the argument is no longer simply about whether one politician has been “banned”.

It is about who controls political access, how broadcasters choose their contributors and whether political movements can maintain open debate among people who once stood on the same side.

Habib says he was cancelled.

His response is that he intends to keep campaigning anyway.

And in Britain’s increasingly fragmented media environment, that may be easier than it once was.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.