Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (right) and Zia Yusuf during a press conference in Westminster, London, June 23, 2025 Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (right) and Zia Yusuf during a press conference in Westminster, London, June 23, 2025
REFORM UK’s proposed change to non-dom tax rules were branded today a “bonanza for billionaires” that would cost the public purse £34 billion a year.
Party leader Nigel Farage insisted the change would be “very attractive” despite admitting he’s “not clever enough” to answer questions about the suggested hit to Britain’s economy.
Image added by dizzy ;). Nigel Farage says he’s too stupid to answer questions about the hit to the UK economy of his plans to suck up to the uber-rich.
He said that he believed “tens of thousands of people” would come to Britain “on this ticket” if Reform was successful.
The far-right party said that it would reinstate non-dom status for wealthy individuals in exchange for a £250,000 one-off fee which would be given to Britain’s poorest workers.
Under the “Britannia Card,” non-doms would be offered a 10-year renewable residence permit and a return to the controversial arrangement whereby overseas income can be shielded from British tax.
They would also avoid inheritance tax, with the one-off payment then being distributed to Britain’s bottom 10 per cent of earners.
The Labour government abolished the non-dom tax status in April, which is where British residents whose permanent home or domicile for tax purposes is outside the country.
Today Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, said that the policy would cost Britain £34 billion
Reform UK is proposing a “Britannia card” that would let wealthy foreigners pay a £250k fee to move to the UK and live here exempt from all tax on their foreign assets. All fees received would be distributed, “Robin Hood”-style, to the 2.5 million lowest-paid workers in the UK.
Reform UK don’t include any analysis of the cost of their proposal. Our analysis of OBR data suggests the cost would likely be around £34bn over five years.
…
[T]he card would provide a very large and expensive tax windfall to a small number of very wealthy people who are already here. Office for Budget Responsibility data shows that this would amount to £34bn of lost Government revenue over five years. That would have to be funded by either tax increases or spending cuts.
‘We scientists, philosophers, writers, artists and citizens of the world have a responsibility to denounce and resist the resurgence of fascism in all its forms.’ Photograph: Karl B DeBlaker/AP
As in 1925, when Mussolini was in power, we must openly defy the brutal imposition of the fascist ideology
On 1 May 1925, with Benito Mussolini already in power, a group of Italian intellectuals publicly denounced his fascist regime in an open letter. The signatories – scientists, philosophers, writers and artists – took a stand in support of the essential tenets of a free society: the rule of law, personal liberty and independent thinking, culture, art and science. Their open defiance against the brutal imposition of the fascist ideology – at great personal risk – proved that opposition was not only possible, but necessary. Today, 100 years later, the threat of fascism is back – and so we must summon that courage and defy it again.
Fascism emerged in Italy a century ago, marking the advent of modern dictatorship. Within a few years, it spread across Europe and the world, taking different names but maintaining similar forms. Wherever it seized power, it undermined the separation of powers in the service of autocracy, silenced opposition through violence, took control of the press, halted the advancement of women’s rights and crushed workers’ struggles for economic justice. Inevitably, it permeated and distorted all institutions devoted to scientific, academic and cultural activities. Its cult of death exalted imperial aggression and genocidal racism, triggering the second world war, the Holocaust, the death of tens of millions of people and crimes against humanity.
At the same time, the resistance to fascism and the many other fascist ideologies became a fertile ground for imagining alternative ways of organising societies and international relations. The world that emerged from the second world war – with the charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the theoretical foundations of the EU and the legal arguments against colonialism – remained marked by deep inequalities. Yet, it represented a decisive attempt to establish an international legal order: an aspiration toward global democracy and peace, grounded in the protection of universal human rights, including not only civil and political, but also economic, social and cultural rights.
Fascism never vanished, but for a time it was held at bay. However, in the past two decades, we have witnessed a renewed wave of far-right movements, often bearing unmistakably fascist traits: attacks on democratic norms and institutions, a reinvigorated nationalism laced with racist rhetoric, authoritarian impulses and systematic assaults on the rights of those who do not fit a manufactured traditional authority, rooted in religious, sexual and gender normativity. These movements have re-emerged across the globe, including in long-standing democracies, where widespread dissatisfaction with political failure to address mounting inequalities and social exclusion has once again been exploited by new authoritarian figures. True to the old fascist script, under the guise of an unlimited popular mandate, these figures undermine national and international rule of law, targeting the independence of the judiciary, the press, institutions of culture, higher education and science, even attempting to destroy essential data and scientific information. They fabricate “alternative facts” and invent “enemies within”; they weaponise security concerns to entrench their authority and that of the ultra-wealthy 1%, offering privileges in exchange for loyalty.
This process is now accelerating, as dissent is increasingly suppressed through arbitrary detentions, threats of violence, deportations and an unrelenting campaign of disinformation and propaganda, operated with the support of traditional and social media barons – some merely complacent, others openly techno-fascist enthusiasts.
Democracies are not flawless: they are vulnerable to misinformation and they are not yet sufficiently inclusive. However, democracies by their nature provide fertile ground for intellectual and cultural progress and therefore always have the potential to improve. In democratic societies, human rights and freedoms can expand, the arts flourish, scientific discoveries thrive and knowledge grow. They grant the freedom to challenge ideas and question power structures, propose new theories even when culturally uncomfortable, which is essential to human advancement. Democratic institutions offer the best framework for addressing social injustices, and the best hope to fulfil the post-war promises of the rights to work, education, health, social security, participation in cultural and scientific life, and the collective right of peoples to development, self-determination and peace. Without this, humanity faces stagnation, growing inequality, injustice and catastrophe, not least from the existential threat caused by the climate emergency that the new fascist wave negates.
In our hyper-connected world, democracy cannot exist in isolation. As national democracies require strong institutions, international cooperation relies on the effective implementation of democratic principles and multilateralism to regulate relations among nations, and on multistakeholder processes to engage a healthy society. The rule of law must extend beyond borders, ensuring that international treaties, human rights conventions and peace agreements are respected. While existing global governance and international institutions require improvement, their erosion in favor of a world governed by raw power, transactional logic and military might is a regression to an era of colonialism, suffering and destruction.
As in 1925, we scientists, philosophers, writers, artists and citizens of the world have a responsibility to denounce and resist the resurgence of fascism in all its forms. We call on all those who value democracy to act:
Defend democratic, cultural and educational institutions. Call out abuses of democratic principles and human rights. Refuse pre-emptive compliance.
Join collective actions, locally and internationally. Boycott and strike when possible. Make resistance impossible to ignore and costly to repress.
Uphold facts and evidence. Foster critical thinking and engage with your communities on these grounds.
This is an ongoing struggle. Let our voices, our work and our principles be a bulwark against authoritarianism. Let this message be a renewed declaration of defiance.
Nobel laureates: Eric Maskin, Roger B Myerson, Alvin E Roth, Lars Peter Hansen, Oliver Hart, Daron Acemoglu, Wolfgang Ketterle, John C Mather, Brian P Schmidt, Michel Mayor, Takaaki Kajita, Giorgio Parisi, Pierre Agostini, Joachim Frank, Richard J Roberts, Leland Hartwell, Paul Nurse, Jack W Szostak, Edvard I Moser, May-Britt Moser, Harvey James Alter, Victor Ambros, Gary Ruvkun, Barry James Marshall, Craig Mello, Charles Rice
Leading scholars on fascism and democracy: Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Timothy Snyder, Jason Stanley, Claudia Koonz, Mia Fuller, Giovanni De Luna and Andrea Mammone
The original Fascists Mussolini and HitlerElon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.UK Labour Party government ministers Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves explain that they are partners complicit in Israel’s Gaza genocide. The UK has provided Israel with arms, military and air force support. They explain that they don’t do gas chambers but do do forced marches, starvation, destroy hospitals, mass-murders of journalists and healthcare workers.Image of Mussolini & Co hanging out. What happens to Fascists.
Reform UK chair David Bull[…]. Credit: Good Morning Britain / YouTube
Farage’s latest chairman is a TV presenter who has attacked climate “madness” and called for the ban on fracking to be lifted.
Reform UK’s new chairman has repeatedly attacked climate targets as “madness” and “a killer”, supported fracking, and falsely dismissed the role of carbon emissions on heatwaves.
David Bull, a TalkTV presenter and former doctor, was appointed as the chair of Nigel Farage’s right-wing populist party this week following the resignation of its previous chair Zia Yusuf.
Yusuf, a luxury lifestyle entrepreneur, said that working to achieve a Reform government was no longer a good use of his time, before returning two days later in a new role.
Bull is now loyal Farage supporter, despite having called the Reform leader a “dangerous, prejudiced idiot” in 2014. He was a member of the European Parliament in 2019 for the Brexit Party, the predecessor to Reform UK, and served as Reform’s deputy leader from March 2021 to July 2024.
In a series of social media posts, Bull has repeatedly attacked the UK’s target to cut carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, which climate scientists have said is needed to limit global warming to 1.5C.
On the eve of the 2024 general election, Bull posted on Elon Musk’s website X.com: “Net Zero is a killer. It’s killing British jobs, communities and the economy. Only Reform UK will scrap Net Zero.”
In reality, according to risk management experts the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA), 50 percent could be wiped off the global economy between 2070 and 2090 if runaway temperature increases are not halted, while there could be more than 4 billion deaths.
In January of this year, he shared a Telegraph story about a lull in wind power and claimed that it made “a complete mockery” of Labour’s net zero chief Ed Miliband and his “religious obsession” with renewable energy.
As revealed by DeSmog, Reform’s constitution gives sweeping powers to its chairman, who cannot be formally sacked by the party leader.
Reform wants to scrap the UK’s net zero target entirely, stop subsidies for renewable energy, impose a “windfall tax” on wind and solar companies, approve new oil and gas extraction, and open new coal mines. The party’s leaders have also repeatedly made false statements about climate change.
As DeSmog has reported, Reform received £2.3 million between the 2019 and 2024 general elections from climate deniers, fossil fuel investors, and polluting interests. It is also openly seeking donations from oil executives.
David Bull’s Climate Stance
In May 2023, Bull hosted a TalkTV segment called “the madness of net zero”. He began by saying: “I think all of us feel that the climate is changing and that we want to go to net zero”. This is out of step with Reform’s position, and the title of his segment.
But he went on to claim, of the UK’s record heatwave the previous summer, “we don’t know whether that is a result of man-made emissions”.
In the same segment, Bull suggested net zero was “subjecting people in this country to become poorer”. In reality, according to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the UK’s net zero economy grew by 10 percent in 2024, employing almost a million people in full-time jobs with an average wage of £43,000 – £5,600 higher than the national average.
In October 2021, Bull endorsed a campaign by climate denial pressure group CAR26 for a Brexit-style referendum on net zero, and shared a poll commissioned by the group, adding: “We absolutely MUST have a referendum on the Government’s net zero policy. Retweet if you agree.”
CAR26 director Lois Perry now runs the UK-EU branch of the Heartland Institute, a notorious U.S. climate denial think tank. The UK-EU branch was launched in December by Reform’s leader Farage.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage speaking at the Heartland Institute’s 40th anniversary fundraiser in September 2024. Credit: Heartland Institute / YouTube
In November 2021, while the UK hosted the flagship UN COP26 climate summit, Bull attacked what he called “the hypocrisy of COP26”. He told TalkTV: “It is obscene. The hypocrisy that they [world leaders] fly in on private jets. People are sick and tired of being told what to do.”
In April 2022, Bull posted on X.com predicting that “Net Zero will be the new Brexit. It will be the most defining issue at the next general election”. Despite Reform’s best efforts, the pro-net zero Labour Party won a historically large majority.
Bull has also supported overturning the UK’s ban on fracking for shale gas.
In October 2022, when prime minister Rishi Sunak reversed the decision by his predecessor Liz Truss to lift the ban, Bull posted: “MASSIVE MISTAKE. We need cheap energy NOW. Fracking has allowed the US to have 100-200 years of cheap energy.”
Aside from the pollution caused by burning shale gas, fracking is environmentally controversial due to its triggering of earth tremors, and the vast amount of water that it uses. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee – a body of MPs that advises the government on climate matters – concluded in 2019 that fracking was incompatible with the UK’s climate goals.
TalkTV was launched in 2022 by Rupert Murdoch’s News UK as a rival to GB News, but in 2024 it switched to an online streaming service.
As DeSmog has reported, TalkTV presenters have frequently attacked climate action. In the COP26 segment, Bull was interviewed by fellow TalkTV host Mike Graham, who has declared on social media that “climate change is a load of old bollocks”.
Bull has resigned as a TalkTV presenter, following his appointment as Reform’s chair.
Nigel Farage reminds you that he’s the man that brought you Brexit and asks what could possibly go wrong.Nigel Farage explains the politics of Reform UK: Racism, Fake anti-establishmentism, Deregulation, Corporatism, Climate Change Denial, Mysogyny and Transphobia.
Nigel Farage speaks during a press conference on May 27, 2025 in London, England. | Dan Kitwood / Getty Images
Nigel Farage says his party is a break from the political establishment. That claim doesn’t match up with its donors
Reform has received almost £5m from wealthy donors since 2023, including those with links to fossil fuels, the financial services industry and tax havens, openDemocracy can reveal.
Nigel Farage’s party received around £1.5m in large donations in the first quarter of this year – far less than the £3.3m given to the Conservatives and £2.3m to Labour – according to our analysis of Electoral Commission data published this week.
The figures are likely particularly disappointing for Reform’s leadership, which has boasted of a major fundraising drive this year, as they don’t include a further £1m that the Tories reportedly received in recent weeks from software and gaming entrepreneur Jeremy San.
But what does the £4.8m of donations tell us about Reform’s aims, especially if it were to win office at the next general election? openDemocracy analysed the past 18 months of donations data to shed light on who is donating to the party – and where their interests lie.
Our findings reveal that, despite claiming to represent a break with the current political establishment, Reform is largely funded by ex-Tory donors, who account for around a quarter of the £4.8m it has received in large donations (only those who give £11,180 or more in a year need to be declared to the Electoral Commission) since 2023.
We also found that Reform has an unusually high number of overseas backers with links to tax havens, which the party has publicly stated is part of its fundraising strategy.
While the party previously criticised Labour’s £4m donation from a Cayman Islands-controlled hedge fund, which openDemocracy revealed last year, more than 10% of its total donations are from sources with strong offshore ties.
How much has Reform raised?
Reform looks set to receive more money in large donations in 2025 than it did last year. The party took £1.5m in Q1, compared to £3m in all of 2024. (The latter figure has been misreported as £4.75m, due to double-counting of donations made during the election period, which are listed twice on the Electoral Commission’s website.)
Farage’s party has sought to frame itself as an alternative to the political status quo of the Conservatives and Labour, yet this is at odds with its wealthy funders, many of whom are longtime political donors and paid-up members of the elite.
Commercial interests in regulated sectors such as energy and financial services are overrepresented among both the established political donors and the first-time donors that Reform has attracted.
As well as this cash from rich donors, Reform has likely raised a significant amount of money through its membership, which party figures say has been the main source of funding over the last year or so.
While Reform declined to provide details of its funding through membership and small donations, its own website says it has more than 233,000 members at the time of writing. If accurate, this would generate between £2.3m and £5.8m a year for the party, whose annual membership costs £25 or £10 for under-25s.
It is important in understanding Reform to note this element of its support, particularly at a time when Labour and the Conservative memberships are thought to be dropping significantly.
The estimated figures suggest that Reform’s claims of being driven by a grassroots movement are true, though so are claims from the party’s opponents that it is taking millions of pounds from the ultra-rich.
Who has donated to Reform?
More than half the £4.8m given to Reform since 2023 comes from people in its inner circle.
The party’s biggest donor is Richard Tice MP, its deputy leader, who has put more than £1m into its coffers, while Zia Yusuf, who spectacularly quit as party chair last week in a row over a burqa ban only to rejoin two days later in a similar role, has chipped in £206,000.
Holly Vukadinovic, better known as Holly Valance, who is married to the party’s main fundraiser, Nick Candy, has also given £50,000.
After Tice, the party’s top donor is Fiona Cottrell, an aristocratic socialite who once reportedly dated the King, who has given £750,000. Though she isn’t directly tied to the party, her son George Cottrell – nicknamed ‘Posh George’ – is a longtime associate of Farage and ran fundraising for his previous political party, UKIP, as a teenager.
George is today understood to be a close aide to Farage and, despite having no official role in the party, was last spotted alongside the Reform leader at a press conference this week. He is believed to live between the UK and Montenegro, where he has a number of business interests, including in cryptoassets.
Following Sarah Pochin’s election in May, Reform now has five sitting MPs again. Rupert Lowe, originally elected as a Reform MP, now sits as an independent having lost the party whip | Carl Court / Getty Images
As openDemocracy has reported, George recently set up opaque corporate entities in the UK and the US, which his lawyers told us will be political consulting firms.
Although George has not given money directly to Reform, he has funded trips for Farage to Belgium and the US worth around £25,000. Electoral rules state that an individual must be registered to vote in the UK – including as an overseas voter – in order to donate directly to political parties, but anyone can pay the “reasonable costs of a visit outside the UK”.
As the party has grown in influence, it has attracted the backing of many donors with a history of financially backing right-wing political projects. The majority previously gave money to the Conservative Party, but some have funded Farage’s former parties and the hard-right Reclaim Party, which is fronted by actor Laurence Fox.
David Lilley, who gave £274,000 to Reform, is a veteran hedge fund boss who co-founded Redwood Kite Capital alongside Tory peer Lord Michael Farmer. Both Red Kite and his current firm, Drakewood Capital Management, focus on mining and metals trading.
First Corporate Consultants, a think tank that has given Reform £200,000, is owned by Terence Mordaunt, former chair of the opaque think tank Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) which campaigns as Net Zero Watch. openDemocracy revealed in 2022 that the GWFP has been funded by an oil-rich foundation with huge investments in energy firms.
We have also previously uncovered significant interests in fossil fuels held by Jeremy Hosking, who has given Reform £140,000 and whose fund, Hosking Partners, has tens of millions invested in oil firms and the wider fossil fuel sector. Hosking has poured millions into the UK right in the last decade, including backing Vote Leave to the tune of millions and more recently funding the Reclaim Party and The Critic, a conservative political and cultural magazine.
Nick Candy, a property mogul and former Tory donor who is now in charge of leading Reform’s fundraising efforts, has publicly stated that his strategy is to court ultra-wealthy donors in low-tax jurisdictions around the world with ties to the UK.
This plan only got underway in earnest toward the start of this year and any donations made in recent months are yet to be published. But Reform already has several confirmed donors resident in Monaco, according to corporate filings.
All in all, around £600,000 came from individuals and organisations either resident in perceived tax havens, or controlled via them. They include Roger Nagioff (£100,000), a former Lehman Bros executive now resident in Monaco according to corporate filings, and Luxembourg-based brokerage firm JB Drax Honore (£50,000), which donated through its UK subsidiary.
Some of Reform’s biggest donors, including Malcolm Robinson (£160,000) and Duncan Mackay (£100,000), have not yet been publicly identified.
Political parties have no obligation to publish any information about their donors other than names and details of the donation, and an unavoidable quirk of these donor transparency rules is that individuals with uncommon names are subject to greater scrutiny than those with common names, because they are easier to identify.
Jeremy Hosking was a major funder of the Brexit campaign and has backed a number of right-wing causes in the years since | Jack Taylor / Getty Images
openDemocracy asked Reform to provide a brief biography for several donors who have given more than £50,000 but are yet to be publicly identified, including Robinson and Mackay, but the party did not respond.
However, openDemocracy can reveal that Simon William Smith, who has given the party £58,000, is an ‘angel investor’ with significant interests in cryptocurrency and related technologies. Reform has pledged to deregulate crypto and reduce tax on capital gains made on it.
Reform has also attracted many first-time donors to its cause, with around a quarter of large donations during this period coming from people or organisations with no apparent history of donating to political parties.
Among them are people with a varied range of commercial interests and professional backgrounds. They range from a former BlackRock executive to a company specialising in stage lighting electronics. Some of these donors control companies providing services to local authorities, including in the social care sector, while another donor has previously spoken out about the impact of small boat crossings on his haulage firm.
Overall, though the interests of the party’s wealthy backers are varied, there are common themes and a clear relationship between their political and commercial interests and Reform’s platform. Many stand to benefit significantly from an anti-net zero push, cutting back regulation in finance or energy, lower taxes on wealth and the liberalisation of cryptoassets.
Billionaire backing
While some of the funders from the UKIP and Brexit Party phases of Farage’s political life are now Reform donors, there is currently one notable absentee.
Christopher Harborne is a British billionaire with interests primarily in the fuel and aviation sectors and cryptocurrency. Though much was made of a potential massive donation from Elon Musk to Reform, in Harborne, the party already seemingly has the support of an eccentric tech billionaire who has form for seriously altering the course of British politics with huge donations.
Over a couple of years, Harborne gave Farage’s Brexit Party millions, becoming one of the largest British political donors in the modern era. He also gave Boris Johnson £1m around the time his government started talking up the crypto industry.
While Harborne has yet to put money directly into Reform in its current form, he has funded trips to the US for Farage. As he has active links to both the UK and Thailand (where he has adopted the name Chakrit Sakunkrit), it is not clear whether he is eligible to donate directly to the party, though he does control trading UK companies, which would be able to donate.
Reform also arguably receives significant backing from another major backer of right-wing UK causes: GB News. If payments that the television channel made to Reform MPs for TV gigs were classed as political donations rather than individual earnings, GB News would have been Reform’s second-largest external donor since the start of 2023, giving around £490k. Most of that cash went to Farage, but another of the party’s MPs, former Tory Lee Anderson, is paid £100,000 per year to host a regular show on the channel.
Nigel Farage reminds you that he’s the man that brought you Brexit and asks what could possibly go wrong.Nigel Farage explains the politics of Reform UK: Racism, Fake anti-establishmentism, Deregulation, Corporatism, Climate Change Denial, Mysogyny and Transphobia.
The leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, recently announced that if in government, his party would abolish the two-child limit on benefits. This social security policy restricts the payment of means-tested benefits to the first two children of a family.
Farage explained the announcement as being pro-natalist – intended to encourage a higher birth rate – as well as being “pro-worker”. Farage said that the abolition of the two-child limit “makes having children just a little bit easier” for “lower paid workers”.
He noted that Reform wanted “to encourage people to have children”. Such arguments are familiar in the European political right, although the UK’s Conservative opposition criticised Reform’s proposal.
To be in government, Reform has two possible routes: to build a coalition of voters for it, or to split left-leaning voters. Its proposal to abolish the two-child limit may be aimed at both.
On the one hand, it might be supported by left-leaning voters who are able to accept Reform’s broader policy agenda. On the other hand, it might be aimed at encouraging left-leaning voters who find Reform’s agenda problematic to move to parties (such as the Greens and Liberal Democrats) who are less equivocal in their commitment to abolishing the two-child limit than the Labour government.
Social security policies winning votes
Social security policies have long been used as part of political strategising. The situation with the two-child limit is complicated, though, because both anti- and pro-natalist views of social security (and it predecessors) have been popular at particular moments.
Political and popular arguments have long been made that supporting the poorest families leads to them having too many children. This, so the argument goes, reproduces, rather than addresses, the poverty they face. Examples can be found, for instance, in the 1834 poor law commission report in relation to “bastardy” and large families, Sir Keith Joseph’s 1970s focus upon the “cycle of deprivation”, as well as “underclass” arguments in the 1980s and 1990s.
The two-child limit was announced in the 2015 budget and introduced in 2017 with the reasoning that “those in receipt of tax credits should face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work.”
The two-child limit on benefits restricts welfare payments for children to the first two children in a family. Len44ik/Shutterstock
In contrast, the architect of the British welfare state, William Beveridge, noted in 1942 that children’s allowances (now child benefit) would help “housewives as mothers” in their “vital work in ensuring the adequate continuance of the British race and of British ideals in the world.” The 1945 Labour election victory in support of the welfare state suggests pro-natalist policies can contribute to electoral success.
The expansion of tax credits in the 1990s and 2000s were partly explained in pro-natalist terms. Tony Blair, for instance, noted: “The working tax credit enables half a million mothers to choose to stay at home.” That, in other words, tax credits enabled women to choose having and raising children over paid work.
Recent polling, however, suggests that the anti-natalist two-child limit polls well among voters, especially Reform voters. In 2024, for example, YouGov found 60% of Britons thought the two-child limit should be kept. The figure was 84% for Reform voters.
Targeting voters
The abolition of the two-child limit may have been adopted to increase Reform’s appeal to left-leaning voters. Providing additional support for families through social security may be attractive to voters concerned with social injustice. The two-child limit increases child poverty. Affected families are unable to provide even the most basic needs, such as food, clothing and heating.
Nevertheless, Reform’s proposal is also embedded in caveats and would be paid for through means appealing to its existing voters. So, for example, Farage emphasised that the abolition of the two-child limit would be restricted to only British families. It would not be extended to families “who come into the country and suddenly decide to have a lot of children”.
By keeping the two-child limit for migrant families, Reform’s proposals are consistent with existing immigration and asylum policies. It has been observed in an inquiry by All Party Parliamentary Groups on poverty and on migration that policies like this are, at least in part, “designed to push people into poverty in the hope that it will deter others from moving to the UK.” And, therefore, the abolition of the two-child limit can be seen as part of Reform’s pledge to severely curtail immigration.
Farage also argued that the abolition of the two-child limit would be paid for by other policies that are central to Reform’s electoral agenda. These include stopping asylum seekers being housed in hotels and the abolition of net zero policies. It is also consistent with Reform’s view that jobs in Britain should be filled by British people. This, it believes, will help reduce reliance on migrant labour from overseas.
There is little evidence that the introduction of the two-child limit had the desired impact on lowering poorer households’ birth rates. And it is unclear whether the proposed abolition of the two-child limit rooted in a British-only, pro-natalist agenda is enough to attract left-leaning voters.
These voters might, for example, be more concerned with Reform’s position on immigration and asylum seeking, as well as the social injustice of the undoubted poverty in which families subjected to the two child limit on benefits live.
Reform’s strategy then may be to further encourage those voters to turn from its closest rival – the Labour party – to other political parties. Whichever is the case, the situation will undoubtedly shift if the Labour government does take the step of abolishing the two-child limit.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (right) and Zia Yusuf during a press conference in Westminster, London, June 23, 2025 Reform UK leader Nigel Farage (right) and Zia Yusuf during a press conference in Westminster, London, June 23, 2025
