Jenrick claims Farage has done more to stand against racism than ‘almost anybody’

Robert Jenrick, Reform UK’s Treasury spokesperson and MP for Newark, has launched a vigorous defence of party leader Nigel Farage after an ITV Exposure documentary exposed troubling internal warnings and extremist rhetoric within the party. Jenrick’s claim that Farage “has probably done more than almost anybody to stand against racism and the far right” sits uneasily alongside footage showing senior Reform officials accusing Farage of shielding a mayoral candidate accused of racist remarks about former Labour deputy prime minister David Lammy. The clash between public denials and undercover revelations raises fresh questions about Reform’s vetting procedures, internal culture and the credibility of its anti‑extremist rhetoric.

The ITV Exposure Investigation: What Was Uncovered

The ITV documentary, the result of a year‑long undercover operation, captured a senior Reform official warning Farage that he was “protecting” a high‑profile mayoral candidate who had allegedly made racist comments about David Lammy. The same footage also recorded Reform MP Sarah Pochin, one of the party’s two female MPs, complaining that other officials “are so fucking chauvinistic” and that women are excluded from the party’s inner circles. These moments were part of a broader series of clips that revealed councillors and election candidates making threats of extreme violence, as well as expressing openly racist, Islamophobic and misogynistic views.

Among the most striking excerpts was a recording of Alan Feeney, a Reform councillor and deputy mayor of Solihull, describing Asian homeowners as “parasites” and claiming that “no more than 1 % of [the] British population can be non‑white”. Such statements, captured on camera, starkly contradict Reform’s public commitment to vetting and to expelling “extremists” and “bigots”.

Farage’s Handling of the Chris Parry Controversy

The documentary also focused on the case of Chris Parry, a retired rear admiral selected by Reform to contest the Hampshire and the Solent mayoral election. Parry had previously suggested that former foreign secretary Boris Johnson should “go home to the Caribbean” and insinuated that at least eight other minority‑ethnic politicians lacked primary loyalty to the United Kingdom. After these remarks surfaced, Reform suspended Parry in March, following a Guardian report that highlighted additional inflammatory comments.

ITV’s footage shows Farage in a conversation with Ed Sumner, Reform’s head of communications, who warned that Parry was “clearly a racist”. Farage responded that Parry “must apologise to Lammy” and that a text apologising had been drafted. When Sumner accused Farage of “protecting” the candidate, Farage replied with a mixture of sarcasm and resignation, noting that “I’m sorry” might be a “good thing to hear” but lamenting that “he’s a rear admiral. That’s the problem”. The exchange, punctuated by laughter, suggests a leader torn between damage control and the party’s broader anti‑extremist narrative.

Jenrick’s Defence of Farage and Reform’s Vetting

In response to the ITV revelations, Jenrick took to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, asserting that Farage is “the most heavily scrutinised figure in British politics” and that he has “probably done more than almost anybody else to stand against racism and the far right”. Jenrick framed the documentary as an attempt to “besmirch his character”, implying that the programme’s ultimate aim was to damage Farage personally rather than to expose systemic issues.

Beyond defending Farage, Jenrick defended Reform’s vetting process, stating that the party “invests a huge amount in it” and that it is “improving all the time”. He contrasted Reform’s approach with that of the Conservative Party, noting from personal experience that there is “absolutely no vetting whatsoever by the central party for local councillors”. Jenrick’s remarks highlight a broader political debate about the standards of candidate screening across UK parties, while also attempting to distance Reform from the extremist statements captured on camera.

The Internal Culture of Chauvinism and Exclusion

Sarah Pochin’s on‑air complaint about chauvinism within Reform adds a gendered dimension to the controversy. Her description of colleagues as “so fucking chauvinistic” and the claim that women are excluded from decision‑making circles suggests that the party’s internal culture may be as problematic as the extremist rhetoric of some of its members. This aligns with the broader pattern of misogynistic language observed in the ITV footage, reinforcing concerns that Reform’s internal dynamics may discourage diversity and inclusion.

The presence of such attitudes raises questions about the effectiveness of any vetting process that focuses solely on overt extremist statements while overlooking systemic sexism. If party officials routinely marginalise female MPs, the capacity for robust internal accountability may be compromised, allowing extremist views to persist unchecked.

Comparative Vetting: Reform Versus Other Parties

Jenrick’s comparison of Reform’s vetting with that of the Conservative Party serves to deflect criticism by pointing to perceived shortcomings elsewhere. He argued that “all political parties have bad apples” and cited Councillor Feeney’s brief stint as a Reform councillor before returning to the Conservative fold as evidence that extremist elements can move between parties. While this may be factually accurate, it does not address why Reform’s own vetting mechanisms have failed to prevent individuals like Feeney and Parry from attaining prominent candidacies.

The broader implication is that the UK’s party system lacks a uniform standard for vetting, leaving each party to set its own thresholds. Reform’s claim of “very strong vetting” is undermined by the documentary’s evidence that extremist language and behaviour were not only present but, in some cases, tolerated or defended by senior figures. Without a clear, transparent framework, accusations of “bad apples” risk becoming a convenient excuse for inaction.

Political Implications and Public Perception

The timing of the ITV documentary, released just weeks before local elections, could have significant electoral repercussions for Reform. The party’s attempts to distance itself from extremist elements may appear hollow to voters who have witnessed senior officials defending or excusing racist remarks. Jenrick’s defence of Farage, while resonant with the party’s base, may not persuade swing voters who are increasingly sensitive to issues of racism and misogyny.

Moreover, the public airing of internal disagreements—such as the clash between Farage and Sumner over Parry’s apology—exposes a leadership style that appears to tolerate, or at least manage, rather than eradicate extremist sentiment. This could erode confidence in Reform’s commitment to “vetting” and to presenting a respectable alternative to the mainstream parties.

Looking Ahead: Reform’s Path to Credibility

For Reform to restore credibility, it will need to move beyond rhetorical defences and demonstrate tangible reforms. This could involve publishing detailed vetting procedures, establishing an independent oversight body, and taking decisive action against members who espouse racist or misogynistic views, regardless of their rank within the party. Transparent handling of the Farage‑Parry episode—perhaps by publicly documenting the decision‑making process that led to Parry’s suspension—would signal a willingness to confront internal failings.

Equally important is addressing the gendered complaints raised by Sarah Pochin. Implementing clear policies to promote female representation and to curb chauvinistic behaviour would not only improve internal culture but also broaden Reform’s appeal to a more diverse electorate. Until such steps are taken, the party’s narrative of standing against the far right will remain at odds with the evidence presented by ITV’s undercover investigation.

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on the source material cited below. Sources: The Guardian UK; theguardian.com; Global1.News (16 October 2026).

By Erica Thornton, Staff Writer