Nigel Farage slammed the “establishment” for their latest attack on Reform as he claimed Tory members hold worse views. An ITV News investigation found councillors and candidates within Reform UK had used 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.

But the Reform UK leader, speaking exclusively to the Daily Express, dismissed fears that people with racist views were particularly attracted to his party. And he suggested sending spies into the Tory party.

Mr Farage revealed ITV News “infiltrated” the party’s headquarters, and only “got me telling a joke” and a “press officer using a swear word”. He told the Daily Express: “They wouldn’t do it to anybody else, would they? I mean, they’ve spent a year on this, goodness knows how much money.

“The worst miscreant, whose quotes have been all over the BBC and everywhere, was, of course, a long-term Tory councillor. But he was never followed undercover as a Tory councillor, was he? But he has been in Reform.

“They have met literally hundreds of people. They’ve been to all the by-elections. They’ve spoken to hundreds of people. They’ve tried to provoke conversations, and they’ve managed to find a handful of people who said unpleasant things, which we have acted on already.”

He continued: “The idea that this is somehow a failure of our vetting is absolutely for the birds. You can’t vet what people are going to say in the future. You can’t vet what people say to each other.

“They would not do this to any other party. And it’s yet another example, after Channel 4 and all the rest of it. I mean, this literally is the establishment trying to do everything they can to throw us out of the picture.”

Asked if Reform was attracting the wrong sort of character, Mr Farage said: “Not compared to the Conservative Party, no.

“The worst miscreant was a long-term Conservative. A Kemi supporter.”

Mr Farage said his party vets “much more heavily than other parties”.

Asked how Reform can convince voters it doesn’t have a racism problem, Mr Farage said: “That’s what they’re trying to do. That’s exactly what they – I tell you what, maybe what I’ll do is I’ll commission a team of undercover [operatives], and we’ll go and speak to a thousand Tory councillors. You’ll find worse.

“You’ll find it everywhere.

“You’ll find it in the pub tonight. It’s people, and particularly if they’re provoking conversation. Not everyone’s been to Oxford University. Not everyone’s been to Eton.

“Not everyone expresses themselves in very carefully formulated language. People just say what they blooming-well think.

“The massive investment that is going in to try and discredit an entire political movement on a handful of people here and a handful of people there tells you, frankly, all you need to know.”

The Reform UK leader insisted his party will rise back up through the polls.

He said: “This is all just absolute nonsense.

“Think how many MPs have been to prison. Think how many, you know, ex-MPs have done goodness knows what over the years. I mean, the effective Deputy Prime Minister is a convicted fraudster.

“What is more serious? Some bloke representing a small district council who says something that is unpleasant, or the Deputy Prime Minister being a convicted fraudster? It’s about scale.”

Asked how he will convince voters a Reform Government wouldn’t be scandal after scandal, Mr Farage said: “It depends how it’s portrayed. It depends how it’s portrayed.”

He added: “We are with the biggest political party in Britain by membership. We’ve got millions of supporters. You know, I mean you could go down the street now and find someone who says he’s a Reform voter and you find he’s a convicted murderer. Would you judge me by him? I hope not.”

In the run-up to the 2026 local election, Councillor Alan Feeney, the deputy mayor of Solihull, was filmed undercover with Reform local election candidates Jamie Campbell and Chris Whelan.

In one instance, Whelan was filmed talking about a female Reform candidate where he said “‘If she’d have given me a hug, I’d have f****** fingered her”.
When talking about another female Reform candidate, Whelan 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 bastard”.

Feeney also called Asian homeowners “parasites”.

He was caught on camera adding: “I’d be saying no more than 1% of [the] British population can be non-white… you’d need a proper nuclear option, like literally drag them out of their homes, stick them on planes and f*** them off to Pakistan, which you’ll never do in a month of Sundays… You just have to make it a country they don’t want to be in… I mean you’re getting to a point where you ban Muslims from standing from public office”.

Asked by reporters about the investigation during a visit to the North West, Prime Minister Andy Burnham said: “We’ve allowed a poison into our politics in recent years, and it’s time to draw a line under it.

“In fact, I praised the Leader of the Opposition (Kemi Badenoch) in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon, who herself drew a line at her party conference between her party and that type of politics, and we all need to call it out more.

“I’m pleased ITV has done this.

“There is no place for any form of racism, antisemitism, discrimination in British politics, and we all should be relentless in repeating that and taking the firmest possible action.

“And I hope the Reform Party will take immediate and firm action against those who’ve been revealed to be making these abhorrent comments.”

Nigel Farage Eviscerates ITV Undercover Hit on Reform UK — ‘They Should Spy on Tories!’

Nigel Farage has hit back at an undercover ITV investigation into Reform UK, accusing the political establishment of trying to damage his party and arguing that journalists should apply the same scrutiny to the Conservatives and other political organisations.

The Reform UK leader made his comments on Thursday, 15 October 2026, after ITV published findings from a year-long investigation that secretly recorded Reform councillors, candidates and party officials making racist, Islamophobic, sexist and violent remarks. Farage questioned the motives behind the investigation and argued that people from other parties could also make offensive comments if subjected to similar undercover scrutiny. <Cite refs={[“turn706239search0″,”turn706239search1″,”turn706239news29”]}/>

The dispute has opened a wider argument about political journalism, candidate selection and the responsibility of party leaders to ensure that those representing their organisations uphold their stated standards.

For Farage, the controversy presents two connected challenges: defending Reform against what he describes as unfair treatment while addressing the specific conduct exposed by the investigation.

Farage accuses the establishment of targeting Reform

Speaking during a visit to Chelmsford in Essex, Farage argued that the investigation was politically motivated.

He said the establishment wanted Reform “out of the picture” and questioned why comparable investigations were not routinely carried out against other political parties. He also pointed out that one of the people featured in the footage had previously been a Conservative councillor before joining Reform.

Farage maintained that no party could completely predict what a candidate might say in the future, even after conducting background checks. He argued that Reform had strengthened its vetting procedures and said the party would deal with inappropriate behaviour. <Cite refs={[“turn706239search0″,”turn706239search1”]}/>

His argument raises a legitimate question about consistency in political journalism: should undercover investigations examine all major parties using comparable standards?

However, the existence of that question does not determine whether the particular ITV investigation was justified or whether the recorded comments should be dismissed. Those issues must be assessed separately, based on the evidence and the public interest served by the reporting.

The central issue is not simply whether other parties might also contain individuals who make offensive remarks. It is whether the footage accurately represents the conduct of the people recorded and what responsibility their party should take in response.

What did ITV’s investigation reveal?

The investigation, produced by ITV’s Exposure team, involved reporters going undercover among Reform UK candidates and councillors during local election campaigning and by-elections in 2025 and 2026.

ITV reported that its footage captured elected officials and candidates using racist, anti-Muslim, sexist and violent language. Some remarks targeted Asian residents and black children, while other comments concerned Muslims and women in politics. The findings were published on 14 October, with additional reporting released over the following days. <Cite refs={[“turn706239search2″,”turn706239search1”]}/>

The investigation also examined conversations inside Reform’s political operation, including how party officials responded to allegations about candidates and how vetting decisions were handled.

These findings were politically significant because Reform has sought to establish itself as a major alternative to Labour and the Conservatives. A party asking voters to trust its candidates with public office faces questions when people standing under its banner are recorded making remarks that appear inconsistent with its stated standards.

At the same time, each incident should be considered on its own evidence. The conduct of one councillor does not automatically establish the beliefs of every member, activist or voter associated with the party.

The investigation’s findings nevertheless created a clear accountability question for Reform’s leadership: how were the individuals selected, what warning signs were available, and what action should follow when serious concerns emerge?

The candidate-vetting controversy

Farage has repeatedly promised to improve candidate selection and prevent extremists and bigots from representing Reform. The undercover investigation has therefore placed renewed focus on how those commitments operate in practice.

ITV reported that its investigation uncovered conversations suggesting that some prospective candidates were advised to remove controversial material from social media before applying. The reporting also examined the handling of allegations against particular figures and whether senior officials had recommended stronger action than the party ultimately took. <Cite refs={[“turn706239search3″,”turn706239search5”]}/>

Reform has rejected the suggestion that racism is acceptable within its ranks. The party told ITV that investigations had begun into the findings, that some individuals had been suspended and that due process needed to be followed. It also said that a small number of people who did not share the party’s values could initially pass through vetting, as can happen in other organisations. <Cite refs={[“turn706239search1″,”turn706239search3”]}/>

The distinction between screening and subsequent conduct is important. Background checks can identify previous statements, public associations and other relevant information, but they cannot guarantee that a candidate will never make an inappropriate remark in the future.

However, vetting is not limited to predicting future behaviour. It can also involve examining a candidate’s previous record, asking direct questions about their views, verifying public information and establishing clear standards for those seeking office.

Where credible warning signs exist, a party must decide how to respond. Its procedures should be sufficiently robust to identify relevant concerns without relying on political convenience or simply expecting controversial material to disappear from public view.

Should the Conservatives face the same scrutiny?

Farage’s demand that journalists investigate the Conservatives is central to his response. He argued that ITV had chosen to devote considerable resources to Reform while failing to conduct an equivalent investigation into other parties.

There is a broader principle worth examining here. Political parties should not receive less scrutiny simply because they are established, and a party’s size or history should not determine whether journalists investigate credible allegations about its representatives.

The Conservatives, Labour, Reform and other parties all select candidates who may go on to exercise public power. Their selection processes, internal standards and responses to misconduct are therefore legitimate subjects for public scrutiny.

But the absence of an equivalent investigation into another party would not, by itself, invalidate evidence obtained during an investigation into Reform. Nor would evidence of misconduct by a Conservative councillor excuse similar conduct by a Reform representative.

A consistent standard means examining each case on its merits. It does not mean treating all accusations as equally supported or requiring every investigation to produce identical findings.

If evidence of serious misconduct emerges in another party, it should be examined using appropriate methods. The same principle applies to Reform.

The question of undercover journalism

Undercover investigations are among the most controversial tools available to journalists. They can reveal behaviour that would otherwise remain hidden, particularly when reporters encounter people in private settings who speak differently from how they present themselves in public.

They can also raise questions about privacy, context, editorial selection and whether a reporter’s approach influenced the conversation.

In this case, ITV said its investigation involved reporters working undercover among Reform candidates and officials over an extended period. The resulting footage included conversations about race, religion, women and candidate selection. <Cite refs={[“turn706239search2″,”turn706239search3”]}/>

To assess the reporting fairly, viewers should consider the complete context of significant recordings, whether the material has been edited accurately and whether the public interest justifies the methods used.

Farage’s claim that people may say things differently when they believe they are being provoked is also an argument that can be examined against the footage. The important questions are what was said, what preceded it and whether the published material fairly represents the interaction.

The fact that a conversation was recorded secretly does not automatically make its contents unreliable. Equally, a dramatic excerpt should not be treated as a complete account without appropriate context.

Reform’s response and the consequences for its councillors

The controversy has already produced consequences for several local representatives. ITV and other outlets reported that a number of councillors and candidates featured in the investigation had left Reform or resigned from their council positions, while others remained in office as the party reviewed the findings. <Cite refs={[“turn706239search4″,”turn706239news24”]}/>

One prominent case involved Alan Feeney, a former Reform councillor in Solihull who was filmed making racist comments about Asian residents. He subsequently resigned from his party positions and later left his council role. Other individuals named in the investigation also faced resignations, suspensions or further scrutiny. <Cite refs={[“turn706239news24″,”turn706239search4”]}/>

These individual cases should not be collapsed into one collective accusation. The appropriate response depends on the evidence relating to each person, the relevant party rules and any applicable council procedures.

Nevertheless, the developments demonstrate that the investigation is not merely a dispute between Farage and a television broadcaster. It has raised questions about the people chosen to represent local communities and the standards expected of elected officials.

For residents, the issue is especially relevant because councillors make decisions affecting local services, planning, housing and the use of public funds. Voters are entitled to expect representatives to conduct themselves in accordance with the law and the responsibilities of public office.

A wider test for Farage’s leadership

Reform’s growing political profile has increased the importance of its candidate-selection systems. A party that expands rapidly may need to recruit large numbers of local representatives, but growth also creates administrative challenges.

The challenge is to build procedures that are thorough enough to identify serious concerns while remaining transparent and consistent. This includes documenting decisions, giving people a fair opportunity to respond to allegations and taking appropriate action when evidence supports disciplinary measures.

Farage’s argument that no party can predict everything a candidate might say is relevant to the limits of screening. It does not, however, settle questions about how previous warning signs were handled or whether the party’s procedures were applied consistently.

Similarly, the argument that the Conservatives should face comparable scrutiny does not answer questions raised by the specific footage involving Reform representatives.

The leadership’s response will therefore be judged on more than its criticism of ITV. Voters will also want to know whether the party investigates the allegations thoroughly, publishes clear standards and demonstrates that its vetting procedures work in practice.

Conclusion: scrutiny should be consistent, and evidence should matter

Nigel Farage’s response to ITV’s undercover investigation has shifted the debate towards the methods used by journalists and the comparative treatment of political parties. His argument is that Reform is being singled out and that other parties should face equivalent scrutiny.

That claim can be examined without losing sight of the investigation’s central findings. ITV reported that people associated with Reform made serious racist, Islamophobic, sexist and violent remarks, and that some internal discussions raised questions about candidate vetting. Reform has said it is investigating the findings and that it does not tolerate racism within the party. <Cite refs={[“turn706239search1″,”turn706239search3”]}/>

The wider principle is straightforward: political journalism should apply rigorous standards, and political parties should be accountable for the conduct of those they select to represent them.

Investigations into other parties should follow credible evidence wherever it leads. But demands for broader scrutiny should not be used as a substitute for addressing substantiated concerns in the case already under examination.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether Farage can win an argument with ITV. It is whether the public receives a clear account of what happened, whether the investigation has represented its evidence fairly and whether Reform’s response produces meaningful accountability.

Those are questions that deserve to be answered through facts, transparent procedures and consistent standards across British politics.