Reform UK, a party known for its populist rhetoric and growing influence in local British politics, has come under fresh scrutiny following a series of controversies across the councils it governs. As the party gears up for significant local elections in May 2026, its leaders insist they are delivering results and savings, even as critics raise concerns about transparency, internal unity, and press freedom.
On September 3, 2025, Richard Tice, Reform UK’s deputy leader, made headlines by firmly dismissing allegations of chaos within the councils his party controls. Speaking to the BBC, Tice was adamant: “There’s no chaos, there is success. We are saving money, identifying waste and voters like that.” He cited the party’s efforts in County Durham as a model, asserting that plans are underway to deliver “hundreds of millions of pounds” in savings for taxpayers.
But beneath the surface of these bold claims, Reform UK faces mounting challenges. In County Durham, two of its councillors recently quit, triggering costly by-elections—each estimated at £20,000 of public money. One, John Bailey, stepped down in June due to ill-health. Another, Andrew Kilburn, was forced to resign just over a week after his election for failing to declare his employment with the council. Meanwhile, a third councillor has been suspended following revelations about derogatory social media posts, including comments about asylum seekers that allegedly breached impartiality rules.
Despite these setbacks, Tice remains bullish about the party’s prospects. Looking ahead to the all-out council elections next May in Sunderland, Newcastle, South Tyneside, and Gateshead, as well as a third of seats up for grabs in North Tyneside, he predicted Reform UK would do “incredibly well.” He emphasized the party’s ambition to stand in every seat, particularly in the northeast, where he claims public support is “massive.” According to Tice, “people will in a sense want to benefit from the great success we are achieving in County Durham cutting out waste.”
Central to Reform UK’s pitch is a plan to reform the way council pension funds are managed. Tice claims this could save “hundreds of millions of pounds” in Durham and other councils, potentially allowing for either lower council taxes or increased investment in services such as social care. However, not everyone is convinced. Pensions UK, the national body representing pension funds, has cast doubt on the feasibility of such dramatic savings. The organization points out that the local government pension scheme is already one of the most successful in the world and currently undergoing reforms. It also urges that any policy changes be grounded in robust evidence and detailed planning, not just political promises.
Meanwhile, Durham County Council is consulting on a controversial proposal that could see the poorest residents paying more in council tax, as changes to a support scheme are considered. A decision is expected later in 2025. Tice, for his part, insists that everyone in the county will benefit from the party’s focus on eliminating waste, with high-profile initiatives like the Milburngate development and a new waste scheme also under review.
But the turbulence isn’t limited to council chambers. Reform UK’s approach to the media has also sparked debate about democratic accountability and the role of a free press. On September 2, 2025, Nottinghamshire county council leader Mick Barton told ITV News Central that he would not lift a ban on the local newspaper Nottinghamshire Live until its journalists issued a “full apology.” The ban, which also affects Local Democracy reporters relied upon by ITV and other outlets, was imposed after a disputed article claimed two Reform UK councillors would be suspended if they did not support Barton’s preference for a larger Nottingham council covering Broxtowe and Gedling. Barton dismissed the story as “total folly” and said it “really upset one of the councillors.”
In his interview, Barton was unequivocal about his stance: “The one thing I am every day in my working life is professional, but unfortunately I think from their point of view they haven’t been totally professional. They asked me for opinions but they weren’t putting out what I said. They were spinning what I said, cutting it in half, making it say something different. I need a full apology and then a way of working forward that’s professional.” Barton added that he was not banning councillors from speaking to anyone if they wished, but he would not allow official press releases to be sent to Nottinghamshire Live.
The ban has drawn sharp criticism from media professionals and democracy advocates. Natalie Fahy, editor of Nottinghamshire Live and Nottingham Post, told ITV News Central: “Seven days into the ban, I’m still absolutely shocked that a politician would do this to the free press. This is an attack on our democracy. It’s straight out of the Reform playbook. We’re not here to be biased, we’re just asking questions. The article that got us banned is not only accurate... but it’s an important issue we’re trying to bring to light to people because it’s going to cost the taxpayer a lot of money.”
Fahy also rejected the notion that the coverage was personal: “It’s certainly not a personal attack on Mick Barton. Why would it be? We’re just doing our jobs. I’m happy to resolve the issue amicably. I’ve dealt with so many council leaders over rough patches in my 20 years as a journalist. But we won’t be apologising, we’ve got nothing to apologise for.”
Barton, for his part, insisted he had no issue with speaking to journalists in general, but maintained that Nottinghamshire Live had “made it personal” towards him. He said he trusted his councillors’ opinions and stood by them, emphasizing that he did not feel the need to independently investigate the disputed claims because his team assured him they were untrue.
This standoff has raised broader questions about the relationship between local politicians and the media, and whether the public is best served when communication channels are restricted. Union leaders and press freedom advocates argue that such bans undermine transparency and accountability, especially when local newspapers have been a fixture in their communities for generations.
As Reform UK prepares for a pivotal election year, the party’s leaders remain defiant in the face of criticism, doubling down on their promises of fiscal discipline and administrative reform. Yet, the controversies swirling around council resignations, costly by-elections, and media blackouts suggest that the path to lasting political success may be far from smooth. Voters in the northeast and beyond will soon have their say on whether Reform UK’s brand of disruption delivers the benefits its leaders promise—or if it simply adds new complications to the business of local government.
With council tax reforms, pension fund proposals, and press freedom all hanging in the balance, the coming months are likely to test both the party’s resolve and the patience of the communities it seeks to serve.
