Sheffield Reform - bringing the party into disrepute
STATEMENT:
Monday 05th January 2026.
“Reform UK Faces Fallout After Sheffield East Disciplinary Row”
“A serious and still-unfolding dispute within Reform UK has left the party’s Sheffield East branch effectively dismantled and is raising wider questions about governance, fairness, and due process within the party. The allegations are said to have contained the wrong date of the incident, a mistake that has still not been corrected. Political parties are private organisations, but they are expected to follow their own constitutions and rules. If Reform UK cannot follow its own rules or state the correct date, this could potentially lead to questions about its ability to run a country”
Those affected have made the following allegations about Reform UK, which the party disputes:
misused emergency powers,
failed to investigate before sanctioning members,
denied basic rights of defence and appeal, and
retrospectively reinterpreted its own constitution.
“The controversy stems from a candidate interview process held on 10 November 2025 by members of the then Reform Sheffield East branch. The interviews followed standard assessment practices, including role-play exercises intended to test how prospective candidates might handle real constituent issues. One scenario involved a same-sex couple presenting a local concern. All participants consented to the process, which was conducted professionally and without complaint at the time”.
Despite this, on 21st November, eleven days after the interviews, six of the twelve individuals involved in the interview process were abruptly suspended by the party’s General Secretary, citing allegations of inappropriate conduct and breaches relating to filming. Furthermore, during this eleven-day period, further candidate interviews were conducted with the approval of both the Regional Director and the County Coordinator, which those affected say suggests there was no urgency.
It is alleged that emergency disciplinary powers were invoked with seemingly little investigation, without any evidence being disclosed, and on the basis of an incorrect interview date. Those affected question what apparent urgency, public risk, or electoral pressure justified the use of emergency procedures eleven days after the event.
Four of those suspended were later permanently expelled, including three branch officers. Following the expulsions, the branch treasurer resigned in protest, leaving the branch effectively non-functional. The fallout has extended beyond Sheffield East, with several potential candidates leaving Reform UK. Some have joined Advance UK, while others have indicated they will also resign from Reform UK.
Alleged breaches of the party’s own rules
Those expelled and disciplined argue that the disciplinary process breached multiple provisions of Reform UK’s constitution and branch rules. They say they were denied basic rights of natural justice, including access to the original complaint, disclosure of evidence, and the identity of complainants. They were required to answer written questions that assumed guilt and were given only two days to respond after being provided with the relevant rules.
A disciplinary hearing on 5 December 2025 did not permit the accused to attend, make oral submissions, call witnesses, or challenge the allegations. Although an outcome was promised by 8 December, the decision was issued eight days later, with no explanation given for the delay. The decision letter asserted that an appeal had already been heard, despite no separate appeal hearing taking place and no independent appeal panel being convened, as required by the constitution.
In a subsequent letter, the party secretary sought to justify this and other failings by arguing that the emergency disciplinary panel also served as the appeal body and that written submissions alone satisfied constitutional requirements. Critics say this interpretation is not supported by the constitution, which explicitly requires appeals to be heard by a fresh panel chaired by an independent figure.
Claims of inconsistency
Questions have also been raised about unequal treatment. Only six of the twelve people involved were suspended; four were expelled; others received lesser or no sanctions; and at least one individual allegedly involved faced no disciplinary action at all. No explanation has been offered for this disparity. The chairperson of the interview panel, the person with the authority to stop the event, was not suspended or disciplined in any way.
Another key issue concerns an allegation of improper recording. The rule cited applies only to formal branch meetings, defined as meetings open to all eligible branch members. Candidate interviews, critics argue, do not fall within that definition, meaning one of the headline allegations may rest on a misapplication of the party’s own rules, again raising questions about Reform’s suitability to govern.
Wider implications
Those affected say the episode represents not a single procedural error but a systemic failure in governance, including the misuse of emergency powers, denial of fair hearings and appeals, and inconsistent application of sanctions.
The dispute has already caused lasting damage to Reform UK’s organisation and credibility in Sheffield. Observers warn that unless the party addresses the issue transparently and in line with its own constitutional safeguards, the reputational harm may ultimately outweigh the original allegations that triggered the crisis. Those involved also argue that the existing complaints process is flawed, as the only people members can complain to are also those heavily involved in the dispute.
Couldn’t run a pi** up in a brewery
Monday 05th January 2026.
“Reform UK Faces Fallout After Sheffield East Disciplinary Row”
“A serious and still-unfolding dispute within Reform UK has left the party’s Sheffield East branch effectively dismantled and is raising wider questions about governance, fairness, and due process within the party. The allegations are said to have contained the wrong date of the incident, a mistake that has still not been corrected. Political parties are private organisations, but they are expected to follow their own constitutions and rules. If Reform UK cannot follow its own rules or state the correct date, this could potentially lead to questions about its ability to run a country”
Those affected have made the following allegations about Reform UK, which the party disputes:
misused emergency powers,
failed to investigate before sanctioning members,
denied basic rights of defence and appeal, and
retrospectively reinterpreted its own constitution.
“The controversy stems from a candidate interview process held on 10 November 2025 by members of the then Reform Sheffield East branch. The interviews followed standard assessment practices, including role-play exercises intended to test how prospective candidates might handle real constituent issues. One scenario involved a same-sex couple presenting a local concern. All participants consented to the process, which was conducted professionally and without complaint at the time”.
Despite this, on 21st November, eleven days after the interviews, six of the twelve individuals involved in the interview process were abruptly suspended by the party’s General Secretary, citing allegations of inappropriate conduct and breaches relating to filming. Furthermore, during this eleven-day period, further candidate interviews were conducted with the approval of both the Regional Director and the County Coordinator, which those affected say suggests there was no urgency.
It is alleged that emergency disciplinary powers were invoked with seemingly little investigation, without any evidence being disclosed, and on the basis of an incorrect interview date. Those affected question what apparent urgency, public risk, or electoral pressure justified the use of emergency procedures eleven days after the event.
Four of those suspended were later permanently expelled, including three branch officers. Following the expulsions, the branch treasurer resigned in protest, leaving the branch effectively non-functional. The fallout has extended beyond Sheffield East, with several potential candidates leaving Reform UK. Some have joined Advance UK, while others have indicated they will also resign from Reform UK.
Alleged breaches of the party’s own rules
Those expelled and disciplined argue that the disciplinary process breached multiple provisions of Reform UK’s constitution and branch rules. They say they were denied basic rights of natural justice, including access to the original complaint, disclosure of evidence, and the identity of complainants. They were required to answer written questions that assumed guilt and were given only two days to respond after being provided with the relevant rules.
A disciplinary hearing on 5 December 2025 did not permit the accused to attend, make oral submissions, call witnesses, or challenge the allegations. Although an outcome was promised by 8 December, the decision was issued eight days later, with no explanation given for the delay. The decision letter asserted that an appeal had already been heard, despite no separate appeal hearing taking place and no independent appeal panel being convened, as required by the constitution.
In a subsequent letter, the party secretary sought to justify this and other failings by arguing that the emergency disciplinary panel also served as the appeal body and that written submissions alone satisfied constitutional requirements. Critics say this interpretation is not supported by the constitution, which explicitly requires appeals to be heard by a fresh panel chaired by an independent figure.
Claims of inconsistency
Questions have also been raised about unequal treatment. Only six of the twelve people involved were suspended; four were expelled; others received lesser or no sanctions; and at least one individual allegedly involved faced no disciplinary action at all. No explanation has been offered for this disparity. The chairperson of the interview panel, the person with the authority to stop the event, was not suspended or disciplined in any way.
Another key issue concerns an allegation of improper recording. The rule cited applies only to formal branch meetings, defined as meetings open to all eligible branch members. Candidate interviews, critics argue, do not fall within that definition, meaning one of the headline allegations may rest on a misapplication of the party’s own rules, again raising questions about Reform’s suitability to govern.
Wider implications
Those affected say the episode represents not a single procedural error but a systemic failure in governance, including the misuse of emergency powers, denial of fair hearings and appeals, and inconsistent application of sanctions.
The dispute has already caused lasting damage to Reform UK’s organisation and credibility in Sheffield. Observers warn that unless the party addresses the issue transparently and in line with its own constitutional safeguards, the reputational harm may ultimately outweigh the original allegations that triggered the crisis. Those involved also argue that the existing complaints process is flawed, as the only people members can complain to are also those heavily involved in the dispute.
Couldn’t run a pi** up in a brewery
