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

Robert Jenrick was defending Nigel Farage’s record as Reform UK faced fresh allegations that extremists had entered or remained in the party. Jenrick said Farage had “probably done more than almost anybody” to oppose racism and the far right during his lifetime. He also said an ITV documentary had failed to damage Farage’s character.

The controversy focused on Chris Parry, a Reform mayoral candidate accused of racist comments about David Lammy. Undercover footage showed Farage resisting advisers who wanted Parry dismissed. Farage instead pressed him to apologise, while a senior official accused Farage of “protecting” him.

The dispute matters because Farage had repeatedly promised to remove “extremists” and “bigots” from Reform and introduce vetting. ITV also filmed other Reform figures making violent threats and expressing racist, Islamophobic and misogynistic views. Jenrick maintained that Reform’s vetting was strong and improving.

Nigel Farage is Reform UK’s leader and the central figure in the controversy. Robert Jenrick is Reform’s Treasury spokesperson and MP for Newark. He defended Farage on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, arguing that Farage had opposed racism and the far right.

Chris Parry was a retired rear admiral chosen to contest the Hampshire and the Solent mayoral election for Reform. Reform officials, including communications head Ed Sumner, advised that Parry should be sacked after racist remarks emerged. In recorded footage, Sumner told Farage that he was “protecting” Parry.

Other named figures include Sarah Pochin, a Reform MP who criticised chauvinism inside the party, and Alan Feeney, a Reform councillor filmed making racist comments. David Lammy was the politician targeted by Parry’s remarks. The wider dispute tests who controls candidate discipline: the party leader, senior officials, or formal vetting systems.

Political candidate vetting is the process of checking a prospective candidate’s background, conduct and public statements before a party allows them to stand for election. It matters because parties lend candidates their name, resources and credibility. Effective checks can identify serious risks before a campaign begins.

Reform UK says it carries out vetting checks on everyone who wants to stand for election. Nigel Farage has promised to rid the party of “extremists” and “bigots” and introduced vetting as part of that promise. The checks are meant to prevent unsuitable people from representing Reform.

The investigation created a direct test of that claim. ITV filmed Alan Feeney making racist comments and showed Chris Parry’s earlier remarks about politicians from minority ethnic backgrounds. Reform eventually suspended Parry in March, but only after months of support. Jenrick said the party’s vetting was strong, heavily resourced and improving.

The ITV Exposure investigation described alleged misconduct across Reform UK’s wider network of councillors and election candidates. It was a year-long undercover investigation, and the footage included several people rather than a single disputed remark. That scale matters because it raises questions about recruitment, oversight and party culture.

The article names four broad types of behaviour: threats of extreme violence, racist views, Islamophobic views and misogynistic views. One filmed example was Alan Feeney, a Reform councillor and deputy mayor of Solihull, who called Asian homeowners “parasites” and said no more than 1% of Britain’s population could be non-white.

The evidence does not provide a total number of people or incidents. It does show that the allegations extended from local councillors to election candidates and senior party discussions. Reform says it vets all election candidates, so the footage has intensified scrutiny of whether those checks detect unacceptable views before selection.

Chris Parry’s case tested Reform UK’s promise to remove extremists and bigots because the party continued supporting him after offensive remarks became public. Parry had told David Lammy to “go home to the Caribbean” and questioned the loyalty of at least eight other minority ethnic politicians. Those remarks directly challenged Reform’s claims about standards.

Reform stood by Parry for months. Undercover footage then showed Farage pushing back against senior advisers who said the candidate had to be sacked. Farage told Parry to apologise to Lammy and “move on”. Ed Sumner, Reform’s head of communications, replied that Farage was “protecting” him.

The party eventually suspended Parry in March, after the Guardian revealed further remarks. The delay made the case a practical test of vetting and discipline. It raised a simple question: do promises to exclude extremists operate immediately, or only after sustained public exposure and political pressure?

Racist or extremist conduct can damage a party because candidates represent it publicly, even when the party did not author their remarks. The immediate consequences can include intense media scrutiny, demands for apologies, disciplinary action and suspension. In this case, Reform faced an undercover investigation and questions about whether its vetting worked.

Chris Parry’s case shows the mechanism clearly. Reform stood by him for months, while Farage urged an apology rather than immediate dismissal. The party later suspended Parry after further remarks were revealed. Alan Feeney’s comments also forced Jenrick to explain that Feeney had previously been a Conservative councillor.

The article does not measure electoral losses or changes in public trust. More generally, such conduct can distract campaigns, consume leaders’ time and undermine promises to exclude extremists. It can also make voters doubt a party’s standards. The future impact depends on how quickly parties investigate, discipline people and improve candidate checks.

Racism is prejudice, hostility or discrimination based on race, ethnicity or perceived racial background. Islamophobia means hostility or prejudice toward Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim. Misogyny means hostility, contempt or prejudice toward women. These terms describe different targets or forms of harmful belief and conduct.

The far right is a broader political category linked to extreme nationalist or authoritarian ideas and hostility toward groups seen as outsiders. A far-right movement or individual may express racism or Islamophobia, but those terms are not interchangeable. Misogyny can appear within far-right politics, yet it can also occur in other political settings.

The ITV investigation mentioned all four categories alongside threats of extreme violence. The article does not provide formal definitions or classify each person’s ideology. Its reporting shows why precision matters: a racist comment, an Islamophobic view, misogynistic conduct and far-right politics may overlap, but each describes something different.