Cunningham sparks row over London comments (Image: Getty)

Her remarks came as Ms Cunninngham, who is herself a muslim, called for British people to be put first in social housing allocations across the capital.

But her comments have sparked furious reaction from Labour MP, Dawn Butler, who represents a London constituency.

At no point in the interview did Ms Cunningham call for people to be stopped and searched because they are Muslim. Instead she argued that people covering their faces should be subject to legitimate stop and search powers – a position she says is about security and safety, not faith.

The row comes as Reform UK continues its march through British politics, with the party hoping to seize control of a slew of London councils in next May’s elections. Ms Cunningham’s comments drew a more measured response from Conservative London Assembly member Susan Hall, who ran against Mr Khan in the last mayoral election.

Ms Hall said: “Laila Cunningham will know – as she was a Conservative at the time – that it has long been Conservative policy for social housing to prioritise the British people, and this is a policy which my colleagues and I support.

“When it comes to communities in London, we must have a unifying culture and values to which we are all striving, regardless of background: like the many tributaries of the Thames, it should not matter where we have come from if we are all flowing in the same direction towards the sea. I’m proud of my country, and my city – and I want other Londoners to be too. Anyone who knows me knows this about me, my love of our flags and our history. I want others to love these things too.”

Reform Candidate Says ‘Parts of London Feel Like a Muslim City’

A new controversy has erupted around Reform UK’s London mayoral campaign after its candidate, Laila Cunningham, said that some parts of London “feel like a Muslim city” and argued that the capital should have what she described as a distinctly British civic culture.

Cunningham, who was selected as Reform UK’s candidate for the 2028 London mayoral election, made the remarks during interviews in January 2026. Her comments quickly attracted criticism from political opponents and Muslim community representatives, while also highlighting some of the central themes likely to shape Reform’s campaign in London: immigration, integration, national identity, policing and the role of religion in public life.

Cunningham is a particularly notable figure because she is herself a British-born Muslim of Egyptian descent. Before entering politics, she worked as a prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service. She later left the Conservative Party and joined Reform UK, becoming one of the party’s most prominent representatives in London.

During an interview with The Standard podcast, Cunningham discussed what she sees as changes in the capital’s identity. She said that when visiting certain parts of London, she no longer felt that she was in a traditionally British city. She specifically referred to areas such as Whitechapel and mentioned markets selling burqas and signs written in other languages.

Her argument was connected to a broader concern about integration.

Cunningham said that she believed people who move to Britain should integrate into British society rather than attempting to change the country around themselves. She described the idea of having “one civic culture” and said that culture should be British. She also argued that London should place greater emphasis on what she called Judeo-Christian and British traditions.

The comments immediately generated a political reaction because London is one of the world’s most diverse cities. The capital contains communities originating from virtually every region of the world, and different neighbourhoods have developed distinctive cultural, linguistic and religious identities over generations.

For Cunningham, however, the issue is not simply cultural diversity. She connects it to the question of whether integration is taking place and whether public institutions are responding appropriately to changes in local communities.

One of the most controversial parts of her interview concerned Muslim women wearing the burqa.

Cunningham said she would like to see face coverings banned if legislation permitted it. She also argued that covering the face should provide a reason for police stop and search. She said that, in an open society, people should not normally cover their faces and argued that hiding someone’s face could create difficulties for law enforcement.

Her position goes beyond a debate about clothing because stop and search is a significant police power. The suggestion that wearing a particular form of religious clothing could itself justify police intervention therefore attracted considerable attention.

Cunningham attempted to distinguish between controlling what women wear and giving police additional powers. She said she was not telling women what they could wear, but argued that covering the face should create a legal basis for police action.

The comments were criticised by Baroness Shaista Gohir, chief executive of the Muslim Women’s Network UK. Gohir argued that Cunningham’s remarks could contribute to an environment in which Muslim women feel targeted. She also raised concerns about the potential consequences of political language when communities are already experiencing abuse and threats.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan also responded to the controversy. He argued that London’s diversity is one of its defining characteristics and said the role of a mayor should be to bring communities together. Khan defended freedom of religion and expression as important British principles.

The disagreement therefore reflects two different approaches to London’s future.

One approach places greater emphasis on a common national culture and expects newcomers to adapt to established British norms. Cunningham has used this argument repeatedly, linking integration to questions about language, social housing, religious dress and national identity.

The other approach places greater emphasis on multiculturalism and individual freedom. From this perspective, people can maintain religious and cultural traditions while still participating fully in British civic life.

The dispute is not unique to London. Across Europe, governments and political parties have been debating immigration, integration and religious identity for years. Questions surrounding the hijab, niqab and burqa have produced particularly strong disagreements because they involve the intersection of personal freedom, religious practice, public security and gender equality.

Britain has historically taken a relatively different approach from some European countries. Unlike France, which has introduced restrictions on face coverings in public spaces, Britain has not imposed a general national ban on the burqa or niqab.

That distinction is important when considering Cunningham’s proposal.

If Reform UK were to pursue restrictions on face coverings in London, it would raise practical and legal questions about how such rules would operate. Any new policing power would also have to be defined carefully, including when officers could intervene and what safeguards would apply.

Cunningham has connected her arguments to wider concerns about crime and policing. She has said that Londoners need to feel that the police are protecting them and has argued that the capital has changed significantly.

Her critics, however, question whether religious clothing or cultural differences should be treated as indicators of criminal behaviour.

That disagreement illustrates why the controversy has become larger than one comment about London.

It is ultimately about what kind of city London should be.

For Reform UK, the issue provides an opportunity to distinguish the party from Labour and the Conservatives by placing national identity, immigration and integration at the centre of its message. Farage’s party has repeatedly argued that Britain’s immigration system has failed to maintain public confidence and that stronger measures are required.

London presents a particular challenge for that message because its population is exceptionally diverse. Reform’s approach must therefore address not only immigration but also the millions of British citizens from minority ethnic and religious backgrounds who regard London as their home.

Cunningham’s own background makes this particularly striking. As a British-born Muslim with Egyptian family roots, she has positioned herself as someone who believes that religious identity and British national identity can coexist. Her argument is that being Muslim should not prevent someone from supporting a common British civic culture.

That distinction is central to understanding her position.

She has not argued that Muslims should be excluded from British society. Instead, she has argued that communities should integrate into a shared national culture. Critics respond that Britain has always contained different cultural and religious traditions and that diversity does not necessarily prevent people from sharing common civic values.

The debate is therefore likely to continue well beyond this particular controversy.

It also demonstrates the political risks associated with language about identity. A politician can intend to discuss integration, immigration or public policy while opponents interpret the same language as a statement about an entire religious or ethnic community.

Cunningham’s comments have already produced that divide.

Supporters of her position may view her remarks as an attempt to address concerns about rapid demographic and cultural change. Critics view them as unnecessarily divisive and potentially damaging to relations between communities. The disagreement is fundamentally about how Britain’s identity should be understood and how much cultural difference can exist within a common national framework.

The controversy also puts pressure on Reform UK to clarify exactly what its London policy would mean in practice.

Would the party seek a national ban on face coverings? Would it seek additional police powers? Would those powers apply only to burqas, or to all face coverings? How would religious freedom be balanced against public safety? And what evidence would be required before police intervention?

Those are practical questions that cannot be answered simply through political slogans.

For London voters, the debate is therefore about more than one provocative sentence. It touches on policing, immigration, housing, integration, religious freedom and the meaning of British identity.

Laila Cunningham has made clear that she wants these subjects at the centre of Reform’s political message in London.

Her statement that parts of the capital “feel like a Muslim city” has ensured that the debate has already begun.

Whether Londoners agree with her description or reject it, the controversy demonstrates how powerful questions of identity have become in British politics. As the 2028 mayoral election approaches, Reform’s challenge will be to turn broad arguments about identity and integration into specific policies that can be examined, debated and implemented.

For now, Cunningham’s comments have opened a much wider conversation: not simply about what London looks like, but about what it means to belong to London and to Britain in an increasingly diverse society.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.