Reform UK has launched a high-profile investigation into the social media activity of Staffordshire County Council’s leader, Ian Cooper, amid mounting allegations of racist online comments and connections to extremist content. The inquiry, announced on December 3, 2025, comes after activist group Hope Not Hate alleged that Cooper was behind inflammatory posts on X (formerly Twitter) and engaged with white supremacist material on Facebook, sparking a political storm that has drawn condemnation from across the political spectrum and prompted calls for his resignation.
At the heart of the controversy is a series of posts on an X account allegedly linked to Cooper. One post, which specifically referenced Foreign Secretary David Lammy, read: "No foreign national or first generation migrant should be allowed to sit in Parliament." According to Hope Not Hate, this and other content demonstrate a pattern of racist sentiment. The group’s findings were reported by the BBC, which also noted that the X account under the name Ian Cooper does not display a photo or any explicit reference to Cooper’s official position, but is likely his due to the nature of its followers.
Reform UK responded swiftly to the allegations, stating it was conducting an "urgent internal investigation over Cooper's non-disclosure of social media accounts." The party’s leadership emphasized the seriousness of the matter, underscoring that transparency and accountability are essential for public officials. Despite repeated attempts by the BBC to contact Cooper for comment, he had not responded as of December 3, 2025.
BBC Verify, the broadcaster’s fact-checking unit, conducted its own analysis of the X account. While it could not definitively confirm the account belonged to Cooper, the circumstantial evidence, including mutual followers and the timing of posts, strongly suggested a link. This uncertainty, however, has done little to quell the political fallout, with critics arguing that the pattern of engagement is damning regardless of the final attribution.
Cooper is not the first Staffordshire Reform UK councillor to face scrutiny over social media conduct. Just last month, Peter Mason, the council’s cabinet member for highways, issued a public apology over posts he wrote about black women and the police. Mason’s comments drew widespread criticism and were seen as part of a broader issue within the local party apparatus.
The latest revelations have prompted a forceful response from local and national politicians. Nine Labour MPs representing Staffordshire issued a joint statement, calling for Cooper’s immediate resignation from both the council leadership and his seat. They declared, "Ian Cooper has, by sharing this kind of material, exposed his far-right and racist opinions. He should now resign the leadership and his seat. No wonder he was reluctant to take action against councillor Peter Mason given his own racist and repugnant views. Staffordshire deserves better than this outright bigotry." Their statement, reported by BBC News, reflects the growing impatience among opposition figures who argue that such behavior is incompatible with public office.
The allegations extend beyond X. Reform UK Exposed, another activist group, claimed that Cooper was a "top fan" of a Facebook page called The European Race, which openly promotes white supremacy. On Facebook, a "top fan" is someone who has high engagement with a page’s content, suggesting not only regular interaction but also ideological alignment. This detail, widely cited in media coverage, has added fuel to the fire and intensified calls for accountability.
Philip White, leader of Staffordshire County Council’s Conservative group, echoed calls for Cooper’s resignation. Speaking to the BBC, White declared, "A man who is a 'top fan' of a white supremacist Facebook group is completely unfit for public office and he should resign immediately." White’s comments signal that the controversy has transcended traditional party divides, with both Labour and Conservative leaders united in their condemnation of the alleged behavior.
Meanwhile, Staffordshire County Council itself has been drawn into the fray. The BBC understands that complaints regarding Cooper’s alleged social media activity have been submitted to the council by various political groups. However, the council has so far declined to comment on individual complaints, citing confidentiality and ongoing processes. This reticence has frustrated some local residents and campaigners, who argue that transparency is vital in cases involving allegations of racism and extremism by public officials.
The episode has also reignited a broader debate about the responsibilities of elected officials on social media. With online platforms serving as both a tool for engagement and a potential minefield for controversy, political parties across the UK have faced increasing pressure to monitor their members’ digital footprints. Reform UK’s internal investigation into Cooper’s "non-disclosure of social media accounts" points to growing concerns about transparency and the vetting of candidates in the digital age.
For Reform UK, the stakes could not be higher. The party, which has positioned itself as an alternative to the mainstream political establishment, now finds itself grappling with the fallout from allegations of racism and extremism within its own ranks. Critics argue that the party’s response will be a litmus test for its commitment to inclusivity and democratic values. As the investigation proceeds, observers will be watching closely to see whether Reform UK takes decisive action or risks further reputational damage.
The controversy comes at a time of heightened sensitivity around issues of race, identity, and representation in British politics. The post-Brexit political landscape has seen an uptick in debates over immigration, national identity, and the role of minorities in public life. In this context, allegations such as those facing Cooper resonate far beyond Staffordshire, touching on national anxieties and the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of acceptable political discourse.
While the investigation is ongoing, the absence of a public response from Cooper himself has only deepened the sense of crisis. His silence, noted in repeated BBC reports, contrasts sharply with the vocal demands for accountability from both colleagues and opponents. As one local observer put it, "People want answers. They want to know that their leaders uphold the values of fairness and respect that we all expect in public life."
As the story develops, the focus remains not only on the specifics of Cooper’s alleged conduct but also on the broader implications for political culture and public trust. Whether the investigation leads to resignation, disciplinary action, or exoneration, the episode serves as a stark reminder of the perils and responsibilities of public service in the age of social media.
For now, Staffordshire—and indeed the country—waits to see what consequences, if any, will follow for Ian Cooper and for the standards of political leadership in the digital era.
