Lee Anderson speaking in the House of Commons (Image: Parliament TV)
Lee Anderson has accused a Nottinghamshire secondary school of placing his photograph alongside those of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini on a classroom display during a politics lesson. In the House of Commons, the Reform UK MP said: “Year 9 students at Quarrydale Academy in Ashfield are currently studying politics.
“And on their display board they have the words ‘extreme Right-wing parties, Nazi Party and fascism’. And at the side of these words they have pictures of Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, the honourable member for Clacton and myself. Does the minister think this should be on the curriculum?” He later posted on social media: “This is an insult to millions of British people who voted for us. Only Reform UK will end this madness.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
Responding in the Commons, Baroness Barran, on behalf of the Government, said: “The Department for Education takes these allegations extremely seriously. We will look into this matter and ensure that any statutory guidance on political impartiality in schools is upheld.” Baroness Barran confirmed “officials will contact Mr Anderson directly.”
No verified public statement has been issued by Quarrydale Academy confirming or describing the board, and no independent evidence has emerged identifying who created it or verifying its display conditions.
Earlier in 2025, teaching materials used in academies run by Orion Education, which operates eight schools in London and Kent, reportedly placed Reform UK’s logo at the “fascism” end of a political-spectrum chart, just below the British National Party (BNP) and the Nazi Party.
One presentation shown to Year 10 pupils reportedly included a photograph of Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice under a section labelled “extremism/far-right ideology.”
Mr Tice denounced the materials, calling them “factually inaccurate and grossly offensive” and described them as defamatory. He wrote to Orion Education’s chief executive demanding a full explanation and apology, warning he might refer the matter to the regulator for academy trusts.
One headteacher at an Orion-managed school described the slides as “political brainwashing” and called for an Ofsted investigation.
Earlier in 2025, the National Education Union (NEU) formally labelled Reform UK a “racist and far-right” political party at its annual conference. Delegates voted to use the union’s political fund to campaign against Reform UK candidates, citing concern over the party’s policies and rhetoric.
NEU’s general secretary described Reform UK’s leadership style as aligned with “right-wing populism.” Reform UK representatives, including Mr Anderson, condemned the union’s stance and accused it of attempting to indoctrinate schoolchildren rather than educate them.
Headtecher Mr Tim Paling said the display was a visual aid and intended to prompt discussion about how political ideas are
classified in historical contexts.
He continued: “However, we recognise that the placement of certain contemporary political figures within this display could be considered inappropriate or easily misinterpreted. Therefore, a decision was made to remove the display.
The school is reviewing how political and historical content is presented in lessons to ensure that context is always clear and that no materials can be misconstrued or cause offence.
Quarrydale Academy would like to apologise for any concerns, offence or distress this situation may have caused. However, we want to be clear that we do not endorse any political viewpoint and remain committed to providing a balanced, impartial education in line with statutory guidance.
“We take seriously our responsibility to ensure that pupils understand political history without drawing inappropriate parallels to present-day individuals or parties.
“We are in contact with parents, governors, and relevant stakeholders, and will continue to ensure transparency as we complete our internal review.”
Lee Anderson Rages at School for Hitler Comparison: ‘End This Madness’
Lee Anderson has reacted furiously after a school became embroiled in controversy over a comparison involving Adolf Hitler, demanding that what he regards as an increasingly inappropriate trend should come to an end.
The Reform UK politician has become known for his outspoken interventions on cultural and political issues, and his latest comments have once again placed him at the centre of a heated public debate. The controversy focuses on the use of Hitler and Nazi Germany as a comparison in a school-related discussion, raising questions about how historical figures should be presented to children and how far political comparisons should be taken in educational settings.
Anderson’s response was direct. He argued that references to Hitler should not be used casually and called for what he described as “this madness” to end.
The controversy is particularly sensitive because Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany occupy an exceptionally serious place in modern history. Hitler’s dictatorship was responsible for aggressive war, mass persecution and the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were murdered. Nazi Germany also persecuted Roma, disabled people, political opponents, homosexual people and other groups.
Because of this historical record, comparisons involving Hitler can carry considerable emotional and political weight.
For Anderson, the issue appears to be about the way historical comparisons are being used rather than an attempt to minimise the crimes of Nazi Germany. His criticism reflects a broader argument that political language has become increasingly exaggerated, with opponents sometimes being compared with the darkest figures in history.
Such comparisons are not unique to Britain. Politicians and commentators around the world have frequently invoked Hitler when attempting to describe policies or political behaviour they consider authoritarian or dangerous.
The difficulty is that comparisons can sometimes obscure rather than clarify an argument.
A historical comparison can be legitimate when it identifies specific similarities between two political systems, movements or policies. Historians routinely compare authoritarian regimes in order to understand how they developed and why they behaved as they did.
However, describing someone as “like Hitler” without explaining the precise historical similarities can turn a complex historical argument into an emotional accusation.
That distinction becomes particularly important when the discussion takes place in schools.
Schools have a responsibility to teach history accurately and to help pupils understand the causes and consequences of major historical events. Studying Hitler and Nazi Germany is therefore an important part of historical education, particularly because the period demonstrates the consequences of dictatorship, racism, antisemitism, political extremism and war.
The challenge for teachers is to ensure that historical material is presented within the appropriate context.
A classroom discussion about Hitler can help students understand how Nazi Germany developed and how ordinary institutions and individuals became involved in the regime. But using Hitler as a casual comparison for unrelated contemporary disputes can risk weakening the historical meaning of the term.
This is likely to be one of the concerns behind Anderson’s criticism.
His intervention also fits into a wider political debate about the language used in Britain’s public life. Political disagreements have become increasingly personal, with opponents sometimes described using highly charged historical or moral comparisons.
Social media has intensified this tendency. Short posts often reward provocative language because it attracts attention and generates immediate reactions. A complicated policy disagreement can therefore be reduced to a single accusation or historical analogy.
The resulting debate can become more emotional than factual.
Anderson has frequently used social media and public statements to express his views on controversial issues. As a Reform UK MP, his comments can attract considerable attention, particularly when he challenges Labour politicians, government policies or what he considers political correctness.
His latest intervention has once again generated discussion about the limits of political language.
Supporters of Anderson’s position may argue that historical comparisons should be made carefully because Nazi Germany represents an extreme and specific historical case. They may believe that invoking Hitler in ordinary political disputes risks trivialising the suffering of those who lived under the Nazi regime.
Others may argue that comparisons with authoritarianism can sometimes serve an important warning function. Historical analogies can encourage people to consider whether certain political developments resemble patterns that have appeared in the past.
The key question is therefore not simply whether Hitler can ever be mentioned in a political discussion. Clearly, he can. The question is whether the comparison is historically accurate, relevant and properly explained.
This is particularly important in education.
Students should be encouraged to ask what happened, why it happened and what evidence supports a particular interpretation. Rather than simply accepting a comparison, they can examine the similarities and differences between historical events and modern political developments.
Such an approach helps distinguish historical analysis from political rhetoric.
The controversy surrounding Anderson also highlights the continuing importance of Holocaust education. Teaching about the Holocaust involves more than remembering a list of atrocities. It requires students to understand how antisemitism developed, how Nazi propaganda worked, how democratic institutions were undermined and how persecution became systematic mass murder.
Historical education can therefore provide pupils with tools for evaluating political language rather than simply giving them emotionally powerful examples.
The danger of careless comparisons is that they can flatten these distinctions.
If every controversial political decision is compared with Hitler, then the specific characteristics of Nazi rule can become less meaningful. Conversely, refusing to discuss historical parallels at all could prevent students from recognising genuine warning signs in modern politics.
A balanced educational approach requires evidence and context.
Anderson’s intervention has also become part of the broader debate surrounding Reform UK and its political identity. The party has attracted supporters who argue that Britain’s traditional political establishment has become disconnected from ordinary voters. Its critics have frequently scrutinised statements made by its politicians and candidates, particularly when questions of race, immigration, national identity or political extremism arise.
Anderson himself has been involved in several controversies during his political career. His outspoken style has made him a prominent figure within Reform and has also resulted in criticism from political opponents.
That background means that his comments on the Hitler comparison are inevitably being interpreted within a wider political context.
Nevertheless, the specific educational question should be considered separately from party politics.
Teachers and schools should be able to discuss difficult historical subjects without political pressure determining what can or cannot be taught. At the same time, schools should ensure that controversial comparisons are explained carefully and that pupils are not encouraged to treat historical atrocities as simple political slogans.
The controversy also raises a broader question about how society remembers the past.
Historical memory can influence contemporary politics in powerful ways. References to Hitler, Stalin, fascism, communism and other historical regimes frequently appear in modern political arguments. These references can be useful when they illuminate genuine similarities, but they can also become rhetorical shortcuts.
For young people in particular, historical context matters.
A pupil who hears that a modern politician is “like Hitler” may reasonably ask what that means. Does it refer to censorship? Nationalism? Authoritarian government? Propaganda? Racial ideology? Expansionism? Mass imprisonment? Genocide?
Each of those concepts has a distinct historical meaning.
A responsible discussion should therefore explain the specific comparison rather than rely solely on the name.
This is why the dispute involving Anderson has become more significant than a single angry political statement. It touches on education, historical memory, political rhetoric and the responsibilities of public figures.
Anderson’s demand to “end this madness” reflects his own assessment of the situation. Whether others agree depends on how they interpret the original comparison and the educational context in which it was made.
The strongest way to evaluate the controversy is to examine the exact wording used by the school, the circumstances in which the comparison was made and the explanation provided by those involved.
Without that context, it is difficult to determine whether the comparison was an inappropriate use of history, a legitimate educational analogy or simply a politically controversial statement.
What is clear is that Hitler remains one of the most consequential and disturbing figures in modern history. His dictatorship and the Holocaust require serious historical treatment, and any comparison involving him should therefore be made with care.
Anderson’s intervention has reignited that discussion at a time when Britain’s political debate is already highly polarised. His supporters see the remarks as a defence of historical seriousness and common sense, while critics may regard his response as another example of political confrontation around education and culture.
The controversy ultimately provides an opportunity to consider how history should be used in modern political discussion.
Historical comparisons can be powerful, but they are most useful when supported by evidence, precise definitions and an understanding of context. The lessons of Nazi Germany are too important to be reduced to political slogans, but they are also too important to prevent serious discussion of what history can teach future generations.
For schools, politicians and the wider public, the challenge is to ensure that references to one of history’s darkest periods encourage understanding rather than simply intensify political arguments.
That is the wider issue behind Anderson’s furious response—and it is one that extends far beyond a single school or political controversy.