Nigel Farage‘s Reform UK announced a series of new policies at the party’s conference.

The gathering in Birmingham was focused on Reform’s first 100 days in government if it wins the next general election.

From stopping small boats to bumping up the tax-free personal allowance, Mr Farage and other members of his top team unveiled key plans.

National emergency

Mr Farage vowed to declare a “national emergency” on his first day in government if he enters 10 Downing Street.

He said Reform would introduce a flood of new legislation and force Parliament to sit seven days a week to pass it.

The Reform leader warned that Britain is “in serious trouble”, adding: “We don’t have time to wait around to fix it.”

Personal allowance

Robert Jenrick pledged to raise the tax-free personal allowance in his speech to the jamboree.

In what is seen as a flagship policy, Reform’s Treasury spokesman told supporters that he would increase the income tax threshold to £15,000.

The personal allowance has been frozen at £12,570 since 2021 in what is a major stealth tax and is due to remain at that level until 2031.

Mr Jenrick said: “The hard choice for Burnham and for us is exactly the same. It’s either welfare waste, foreign aid and migrants — or the British worker. We choose the worker.”

Reform said the plan would save the average taxpayer £500 a year and take 2.9 million people out of income tax altogether, at a cost of £17.7 billion in its first year.

Small boats

Mr Farage promised to stop small boats within 100 days if he he takes power.

The Reform UK leader announced a “new entente cordiale” with France’s right-wing National Rally party.

The deal for the two parties to co-operate on returning migrants to France was signed by Mr Farage and National Rally president Jordan Bardella at Reform’s conference.

As he announced the agreement, the Brexiteer said: “We are about to sign a memorandum of understanding between our two parties, and we hope and believe our next two governments, where we reaffirm our commitment to stopping illegal immigration, where France say they’ll do their utmost to stop all departures and maybe this time, with him as prime minister, they will actually mean it.”

Mr Bardella added: “France must take back control, and France must finally keep its word.”

Energy bills

Richard Tice vowed that he would resign if he did not lash household energy bills by £250 in Reform UK’s first 100 days in office.

Reform said this would be done by axing government policy costs from electricity and gas bills, scrapping carbon taxes on generators, and permanently remove VAT from consumer energy bills.

The party’s deputy leader, who is a fierce critic of net zero policies, said he is “prepared to put my money where my mouth is”.

He told activists: “If I don’t deliver on that key pledge in the first 100 days, I will resign. That’s it.”

Mickey Mouse degrees

Suella Braverman announced plans to cut student loans being issued for “Mickey House” degrees.

Reform’s education spokeswoman also said she would lift the cap on medical school places and 0% interest loans for student nurses.

Mrs Braverman said: “We will lift the cap on how many doctors we train, we will fund nursing degrees like never before and we will remove the rubbish from our university sector to fund a British renaissance of culture and industry.”

Nigel Farage’s 5 New Bombshell Reform Policies That Put Andy Burnham Under Pressure

Nigel Farage has intensified his challenge to Prime Minister Andy Burnham by putting forward a series of hard-line policies on immigration, welfare, taxation, energy and the future of Britain’s relationship with Europe. The Reform UK leader is seeking to present his party as an alternative to Labour’s approach, arguing that the country needs a significant change in direction.

The latest proposals arrive as Burnham faces difficult political arguments over public spending, pensions, migration and closer cooperation with the European Union. Farage has made clear that he intends to challenge the government across several of these areas, particularly immigration and the cost of living.

Reform UK’s published platform includes commitments to restrict access to certain benefits for foreign nationals, increase deportations of people without permission to remain, change energy policy, reduce taxes for some workers and businesses, and reform the relationship between government and the private sector. These are substantial proposals, although their eventual effects would depend on legislation, implementation and the available public finances. <Cite refs={[“turn982591search0″,”turn982591news10”]}/>

Here are five policy areas likely to shape the political confrontation between Farage and Burnham.

1. A Dramatic Overhaul of the Asylum System

Immigration remains one of Reform UK’s defining political issues, and Farage has recently announced proposals that would substantially change Britain’s asylum arrangements.

On October 12, Reform outlined plans for a five-year suspension of the granting of asylum, alongside the immediate removal of certain groups of people whose applications had failed or whose permission to remain would be withdrawn under the party’s proposed rules. The party has also proposed reviewing the status of some people granted asylum since 2024. <Cite refs={[“turn982591search2″,”turn982591search1”]}/>

The proposals go beyond increasing border enforcement. Reform wants to expand immigration checks across parts of the state, use additional information to identify people it believes are living in the country unlawfully, and establish a dedicated deportation operation.

Farage argues that the current system encourages illegal migration by allowing people to remain in Britain while their cases are considered. He has also claimed that restricting access to benefits would reduce the incentives associated with irregular migration.

However, the policy has attracted strong criticism from refugee organisations and other opponents. They question whether large-scale removals could be carried out at the proposed speed, particularly when people cannot safely be returned to their countries of origin or when receiving countries refuse to cooperate.

The inclusion of women and children in the proposed measures has also raised concerns about humanitarian protection and family circumstances. Any government implementing such a programme would face legal obligations, practical barriers and the need to assess individual cases.

For Burnham, the debate creates a difficult policy test. The government must demonstrate that it can manage the asylum system, enforce immigration law and reduce dangerous Channel crossings while maintaining legal safeguards.

Farage’s approach is considerably more restrictive. The political disagreement is therefore not simply about whether the system should be reformed, but about how far the government should go and what protections should remain in place.

2. Restricting Welfare Benefits for Foreign Nationals

Farage has also promised to change eligibility for a range of welfare payments, arguing that public support should prioritise British citizens.

In an article published on October 13, the Reform leader said that access to Universal Credit, Housing Benefit, free childcare and most non-contributory benefits would be restricted to British citizens under a Reform government. The party’s published policy also proposes ending welfare eligibility for foreign nationals, while setting out exceptions and separate arrangements for some categories of residents. <Cite refs={[“turn982591search1″,”turn982591search0”]}/>

Supporters of the policy argue that it would reduce pressure on public finances and reinforce the principle that access to certain benefits should depend on citizenship. Reform presents the proposal as part of a wider effort to control migration and ensure that public spending is directed towards people it regards as having the strongest claim to support.

But the proposal raises important questions about its scope.

Foreign nationals living in Britain include people with different immigration statuses, employment histories and legal entitlements. Some have lived in the country for many years, paid taxes and made National Insurance contributions. Others may have limited permission to remain or be subject to different benefit rules already.

A blanket restriction would therefore require careful consideration of existing legislation, international agreements and the rights attached to different forms of residence.

There would also be economic questions. If some households lost access to financial assistance, local authorities and other public services could face additional pressures. The overall effect on public spending would depend on which benefits were affected, the number of people covered and the consequences for other services.

Burnham and Labour would be expected to defend their own approach to welfare and explain how they intend to balance support for vulnerable households with the government’s financial constraints.

The issue is likely to remain contentious because it connects immigration policy with questions of fairness, taxation and the responsibilities of the state.

3. Tax Cuts for Workers and Businesses

Reform UK is also seeking to attract voters through proposals aimed at reducing taxes and encouraging economic activity.

The party’s published platform includes raising the personal income-tax allowance to £15,000, removing income tax on overtime through a proposed “Hard Work Bonus”, increasing the VAT registration threshold for businesses to £150,000 and reducing certain costs faced by employers. It has also pledged support for small businesses through lower regulatory burdens and improved access to finance. <Cite refs={[“turn982591search0″,”turn982591news10”]}/>

The argument behind these measures is straightforward: allowing workers to retain more of their earnings could improve incentives to take additional hours, while reducing administrative and tax costs could help businesses invest and recruit.

Small businesses, particularly those operating in hospitality and local retail, often face pressure from wages, rent, energy costs and taxation. Reform argues that reducing these burdens would help companies expand and protect jobs.

However, tax reductions also create a challenge for the public finances. If the government collects less revenue, it must either reduce spending, increase revenue elsewhere, borrow more or rely on economic growth to compensate for the shortfall.

The scale of any benefit would also vary. A higher personal allowance would affect taxpayers differently depending on their earnings, while a VAT threshold change would matter most to businesses approaching the existing registration limit.

Burnham’s government would be under pressure to explain how its own tax and spending choices support households and employers. Reform, in turn, would need to show how its proposed reductions could be financed without undermining public services.

The dispute is therefore likely to revolve around competing economic priorities: how much tax should be collected, which groups should benefit from reductions and how the government can encourage growth while meeting its spending commitments.

4. A Major Change in Energy and Net-Zero Policy

Energy is another area where Reform proposes a significant departure from Labour’s direction.

The party has pledged to scrap net-zero targets, maximise domestic oil and gas production and expand nuclear power. It argues that increasing domestic energy supplies would strengthen energy security and help bring down costs for households and businesses. <Cite refs={[“turn982591news10″,”turn982591search5”]}/>

Farage’s argument is that Britain should prioritise reliable and affordable energy rather than pursue climate policies that he believes place excessive costs on consumers and industry.

The proposal could appeal to people concerned about energy bills, industrial competitiveness and the pace of the transition away from fossil fuels. Energy-intensive manufacturers, in particular, depend on predictable prices and reliable supplies.

However, changing the country’s climate commitments would have consequences beyond the immediate cost of energy. The UK has existing statutory climate targets and international commitments, meaning a new government would need to address the legal and diplomatic implications of abandoning or revising them.

The economic impact would also depend on market conditions. Increasing oil and gas production does not guarantee lower household bills, because prices are influenced by international markets, infrastructure, taxation and the costs of producing and distributing energy.

Likewise, renewable energy, nuclear power and fossil fuels each have different construction timelines, financing requirements and implications for the electricity system.

Burnham would need to defend the government’s energy strategy by explaining how it intends to balance affordability, security of supply, investment and climate obligations. Reform would need to demonstrate how its alternative could deliver reliable energy at lower overall cost.

The disagreement is likely to become particularly important for households struggling with bills and for businesses deciding where to invest.

5. A More Confrontational Approach to Europe

Farage’s fifth major area of opposition concerns Britain’s relationship with the European Union.

Burnham has recently argued that the government should explore closer cooperation with Brussels where it could improve trade, energy coordination and security. He has said that refusing to consider potential agreements would be irresponsible, while insisting that the public should remain in control of any future decision about the country’s relationship with the EU. <Cite refs={[“turn982591news9″,”turn982591search4”]}/>

Farage has taken the opposite political position. Reform continues to present Brexit as a decision that should be protected rather than gradually reversed, and the party has criticised proposals that it believes could return influence to European institutions.

This disagreement involves more than the question of EU membership. It concerns the extent to which Britain should align its rules with European standards, participate in shared arrangements and accept conditions in exchange for easier access to markets.

Supporters of closer cooperation argue that reducing trade barriers could help British exporters and provide businesses with greater certainty. They also believe that cooperation on energy and security can serve the UK’s interests without requiring it to rejoin the EU.

Reform’s position places greater emphasis on national autonomy and the risks of accepting obligations that might constrain future governments.

The practical outcome would depend on the terms of any agreement. A limited deal covering a particular sector would have different consequences from a much broader arrangement involving extensive regulatory alignment.

For Burnham, the task is to explain which agreements would offer measurable benefits and what conditions Britain would accept. For Farage, the challenge is to show how the country can protect its economic interests while avoiding arrangements he considers an erosion of sovereignty.

The issue could become a major dividing line between the two political approaches, particularly if negotiations with Brussels produce proposals that require difficult trade-offs.

Can Reform Turn Its Policies Into Government Action?

Together, these five policy areas illustrate the breadth of Reform UK’s ambitions. The party wants a more restrictive immigration system, tighter welfare eligibility, lower taxes in selected areas, a different energy strategy and a more distant relationship with the EU.

The policies also involve substantial implementation challenges.

Large-scale deportations would require legal processes, accommodation, staff and cooperation from other countries. Changes to welfare eligibility would need clear rules and an assessment of the effects on households and public services. Tax cuts would require credible financial estimates, while changes to energy policy would have to account for investment, infrastructure and existing legal commitments.

These issues do not mean that the proposals cannot be debated or implemented. They mean that their feasibility and likely effects must be assessed individually rather than treated as guaranteed outcomes.

Reform has published policy documents setting out its priorities, but the full consequences of a future programme would depend on detailed legislation, financial calculations and the decisions made during implementation. <Cite refs={[“turn982591search0″,”turn982591news10”]}/>

Burnham’s government faces its own responsibility to demonstrate that its policies can improve living standards, manage migration, maintain public services and support economic growth. Political criticism alone will not resolve those challenges.

The contest between the two leaders is therefore likely to focus increasingly on delivery. Reform will seek to show that its proposed changes offer a clear alternative, while Labour will need to explain why its approach can address the same concerns through different measures.

Conclusion: Five Policies, One Wider Political Debate

Nigel Farage’s proposals place immigration, welfare, taxation, energy and European cooperation at the centre of his challenge to Andy Burnham.

Each policy raises questions that extend beyond party politics. How should Britain control its borders while meeting its legal obligations? Who should qualify for publicly funded support? How can taxes be reduced without undermining public services? What energy mix can provide reliable and affordable power? And how close should the UK move towards the European Union after Brexit?

There are no automatic answers to these questions, and the consequences of the competing proposals will depend on their details.

Farage is presenting Reform as a party prepared to make sweeping changes. Burnham’s government will be judged on whether it can respond to the underlying concerns without accepting every solution proposed by its opponents.

Ultimately, the debate will be about more than which leader uses the strongest language. It will be about whether each side can demonstrate that its policies are workable, properly funded and capable of delivering measurable results for the British public.