What specific policies proposed by Reform UK have been labeled racist and what aspects drew criticism?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Reform UK has faced accusations that specific immigration and candidate-selection policies are racist, with critics pointing to proposals to strip settled migrants of indefinite leave to remain and to mass-deportation rhetoric, plus a history of candidates posting racist content; polling and civil-society campaigns have amplified those charges [1] [2] [3]. Supporters and some commentators reject or caution against the label, arguing that voters’ anxieties about migration are legitimate and that branding policies “racist” risks political backlash or oversimplification [4] [5].
1. Immigration proposals singled out: ending indefinite leave and citizenship threats
The clearest flashpoint has been Reform’s migration platform — notably plans described in reporting as seeking to end indefinite leave to remain by forcing long-settled migrants to apply for British citizenship or face deportation, and even summer proposals on mass deportation of asylum seekers — which Labour and many campaigners labelled “racist” because of who would be most affected: long-settled, often non-white families and refugees rather than majority-white EU citizens [1].
2. Why critics call those policies racist: targets, impact and messaging
Critics argue the policies are racist not only because they target non-EU settled communities in practical effect but because the rhetoric and proposed enforcement would “tear families apart” and scapegoat refugees and minorities, normalising dehumanising language and behaviour in public life, a concern expressed by teachers and campaigners seeing a social impact beyond legislation [1] [6].
3. Candidate conduct and vetting failures that fuel the reputation
Beyond headline policies, watchdogs and media reports have documented local Reform candidates who posted racist slurs, praised extremist views or promoted far-right conspiracies, and campaign groups such as Hope Not Hate have said the party still fields problematic candidates despite claims of improved vetting — a pattern repeatedly cited by unions and civil-society bodies as evidence the party tolerates or attracts racist views [2] [7] [8].
4. Public polling and organised opposition: perception becomes political fact
Polling shows a substantial portion of the public, and especially ethnic-minority Britons, perceive Reform and its policies as racist — with YouGov figures in 2025 finding roughly four-in-ten to seven-in-ten respondents describing the party or its policies as generally racist and separate surveys showing much higher rates of that perception among minority voters — while groups such as Stand Up to Racism, UNISON and the NEU have explicitly campaigned against Reform on those grounds [3] [9] [10] [8].
5. The party’s and allies’ rebuttals, and dissent within Labour over the label
Reform and its supporters reject the label, arguing they are responding to genuine voter anxieties about migration and that accusations insult millions of concerned voters; Nigel Farage and some media voices have portrayed the “racist” tag as an attack on legitimate concerns [11]. Within Labour and allied commentators there is also disagreement: while Keir Starmer publicly called aspects of Reform’s migration policy “racist,” some Labour figures warned the term risks backfiring or being too nuanced for voters, urging framing such policies as “divisive” instead [1] [5] [4].
6. Where the evidence in reporting stops and open questions remain
Reporting and campaign material document specific proposals, candidate social-media posts and broad public perceptions, but publicly available sources here do not provide definitive legal or academic adjudication proving intent to discriminate by Reform’s leadership; instead the record shows contested claims, empirical examples of harmful policy effects highlighted by critics, and continuing disputes over whether that amounts to racism or political opportunism [2] [1] [12].