Tice denies Reform UK in chaos after Yusuf returns
Reform UK's deputy leader Richard Tice has insisted the party knows "exactly what it is doing" following a 48 hours in which its chairman Zia Yusuf resigned, before returning in a different role.
On Thursday, Yusuf dramatically quit, saying in a social media post that trying to get the party elected was not "a good use of my time".
However, two days later he said he would be coming back to lead the party's unit tasked with identifying spending cuts at councils, which is inspired by the US Department of Government Efficiency.
Tice told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that chairing the party was "a tough, brutal job" and Yusuf was "essentially exhausted" after 11 months in the role.
"It's a massive job, and as we were growing incredibly fast - essentially that job was too much for one person, so we're reorganising.
"I'm delighted that Zia is staying with the party and he's going to be focusing on our Doge unit."
Reform to begin Musk-style audits of councils
Yusuf announced his initial decision to quit in a social media post but did not expand on his reasons for leaving.
However, it came shortly after he criticised Sarah Pochin - Reform's newest MP - who used her question at Prime Minister's Question to ask if the government would ban the burka, a veil worn by some Muslim women that covers their face and body.
Asked about Pochin's intervention on X, Yusuf - who is a Muslim - said: "Nothing to do with me. Had no idea about the question nor that it wasn't policy.
"Busy with other stuff. I do think it's dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do."
Announcing his decision to return to the party on Saturday, Yusuf said his initial resignation was "born of exhaustion" following "11 months [of] hard work and exhaustion".
Party leader Nigel Farage said Yusuf had been subject to "pretty vile abuse" adding: "He overreacted to it and he admits himself it was a mistake."
The Liberal Democrats said Reform UK were playing "musical chairman" while Labour characterised the events as a "humiliating hokey-cokey".
Asked if it made the party look chaotic, Tice said: "No, we know exactly what we're doing."
He continued: "Zia was essentially exhausted because he'd been working 24/7 for the last 10 or 11 months voluntarily.
"There's high pressure, it's a big, tough, brutal job chairing a fast growing political party. But it's great news he's with us, on we go."
The party is expected to appoint a new chairman and deputy chairman next week.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk trades threats with Trump: What it could mean for SpaceX, Starship in Texas
When President Donald Trump took office in January, he began offering plenty of signs that his goals for U.S. spaceflight aligned closely with those of billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk. Now those goals, which included making reaching Mars during Trump's second term a top priority, appear to be up in the air with the increasingly volatile fallout between two of the world's most powerful men. As insults have turned to threats, Trump has suggested he'd hit Musk where it could hurt most: His wallet. Musk's SpaceX has spent years positioning itself at the center of American civil and military spaceflight – a profitable relationship that has made the company's founder incredibly wealthy. In response, Musk has floated – and then retracted – the idea of decommissioning a SpaceX vehicle critical to NASA's spaceflight program. Serious threats, or empty words? That remains to be seen as Musk and Trump reportedly consider a détente. In the meantime, here's what to know about what's at stake if the U.S. government's relationship with SpaceX were to crumble: U.S. spaceflight: Dozens of NASA space missions could be axed under Trump's budget The feud between Trump and his former top adviser escalated in a dramatic fashion when the president threatened to cut off the taxpayer dollars that have fueled Elon Musk's businesses, including SpaceX. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," Trump said in a post on his social media platform. "I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" In all, Musk and his businesses have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits, a Washington Post analysis found. With SpaceX as the fulcrum of much of the U.S. government's spaceflight programs, parting ways with the commercial company would leave a void that would be hard to fill. But NASA Press Secretary Bethany Stevens said in a post on social media site X that 'NASA will continue to execute upon the President's vision for the future of space.' 'We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President's objectives in space are met,' Stevens wrote. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, founded SpaceX, in 2002. In July 2024, Musk announced his intentions to move his company, as well as social media platform X's headquarters, from California to Texas. The move was in response to his personal frustrations over a public school policy in California regarding transgender students. Now, the commercial spaceflight company is headquartered at Starbase in South Texas about 180 miles south of Corpus Christi. The site, which is where SpaceX has been conducting routine flight tests of its 400-foot megarocket known as Starship, was recently voted by residents to become its own city. SpaceX conducts many of its own rocket launches, most using the Falcon 9 rocket, from both California and Florida. That includes a regular cadence of deliveries of Starlink internet satellites into orbit, and occasional privately-funded commercial crewed missions on the Dragon. The most recent of SpaceX's private human spaceflights, a mission known as Fram2, took place in April. SpaceX was also famously involved in funding and operating the headline-grabbing Polaris Dawn crewed commercial mission in September 2024. SpaceX benefits from billions of dollars in contracts from NASA and the Department of Defense by providing launch services for classified satellites and other payloads. Gwynne Shotwell, CEO of SpaceX, has said the company has about $22 billion in government contracts, according to Reuters. The vast majority of that, about $15 billion, is derived from NASA. SpaceX's famous two-stage Falcon 9 rocket ‒ one of the world's most active ‒ is routinely the rocket of choice to get many NASA missions off the ground. For instance, the rocket is due in the days ahead to help propel a four-person crew of private astronauts to the International Space Station for a venture with NASA known as Axiom Mission 4. NASA also has plans to use SpaceX's Starship in its Artemis lunar missions to ferry astronauts aboard the Orion capsule from orbit to the moon's surface. The rocket, which is in development, has yet to reach orbit in any of its nine flight tests beginning in April 2023. SpaceX's Dragon capsule is also a famous vehicle that is widely used for a variety of spaceflights. The capsule, which sits atop the Falcon 9 for launches to orbit, is capable of transporting both NASA astronauts and cargo to the space station. Under NASA's commercial crew program, the U.S. space agency has been paying SpaceX for years to conduct routine spaceflights to the International Space Station using the company's own launch vehicles. The first of SpaceX's Crew missions ferrying astronauts to the orbital outpost on the Dragon began in 2020, with the tenth and most recent contingent reaching the station in March for about a six-month stay. Standing nearly 27 feet tall and about 13 feet wide, Dragon capsules can carry up to seven astronauts into orbit, though most of SpaceX's Crew missions feature a crew of four. The Dragon spacecraft also was the vehicle NASA selected to bring home the two NASA astronauts who rode the doomed Boeing Starliner capsule to the space station in June 2024. Certifying the Starliner capsule for operation would give NASA a second vehicle in addition to Dragon for regular spaceflights to orbit. Because Boeing is still developing its Starliner capsule, Dragon is the only U.S. vehicle capable of carrying astronauts to and from the space station. It's also one of four vehicles contracted to transport cargo and other supplies to the orbital laboratory. For that reason, Musk's threat Thursday, June 5 to decommission the Dragon "immediately" would be a severe blow to NASA if he were to follow through on it. Musk, though, appears to already be backing off on the suggestion, which he made in response to Trump's own threats. In response to a user who advised Musk to "Cool off and take a step back for a couple days," Musk replied: 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' Seven astronauts are aboard the International Space Station, including three Americans. Four of the astronauts rode a SpaceX Dragon to the station for a mission known as Crew-10, while the remaining three launched on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft. Contributing: Joey Garrison, Josh Meyer, USA TODAY; Reuters Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@ This article originally appeared on Corpus Christi Caller Times: SpaceX at center of Trump, Musk feud: What that could mean for Texas
New York Post
9 hours ago
- New York Post
Iran rulers' playing for time is one big reason Trump shouldn't give them any
Hmm: Hours after the world learned that President Donald Trump would take 'up to two weeks' to decide whether to send in US warplanes to drop bunker-busters on Fordow, Tehran's last main nuclear site, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi vomited up some fresh bluster. That makes it obvious the regime intends to just string this out for as long as possible, hoping that Europe and/or Congress will somehow get Trump to tell Israel to stop its campaign. Which means the president needs to pay even more heed to the risks of holding off on a decisive intervention. That includes not just the possible loss of public support that's built over the last week, but the chance that some unforeseen development will raise the stakes beyond a straightforward strike on a single nuke site. To be clear, Trump can still hope for a negotiated end to Iran's nuclear program, but Araqchi's ploy reeks of the same bogus game that Hamas has been playing ever since the end of the Gaza ceasefire the prez imposed as he was taking office. A game the Iranian was plainly pushing as he met Friday in Geneva with a passel of European diplos trying to 'de-escalate' the conflict. Meanwhile, some in Congress are maneuvering to tie Trump's hands, insisting he shouldn't act without votes in the House and Sente explicitly authorizing any strikes — a precedent that would likely permanently limit not just this president, but all future holders of the Oval Office. For what it's worth, Trump plainly isn't holding off only because the ayatollah might see reason: He's also considering the full impact of a US strike, and seeing what else may develop. For example: Maybe Israel can take out Fordow without our help, whether with repeated waves of smaller bombs or (conceivably) the most ambitious commando raid ever. He's reportedly also worried about Iran descending into total chaos, as Libya did after President Barack Obama arrogantly decided he could show the world how 'regime change' should be done. Yet that raises another angle that argues against Trump taking his time: Israel's ongoing total humiliation of the Islamic Republic's rulers (and its killing of many of them) could trigger a Libya-style 'regime collapse' even without a Fordow takeout. So a fast elimination of all Tehran's nuclear assets, allowing Israel to stand down, is arguably the best hope for the region to stabilize. Khamenei and his advisers care only about protecting their own power, so they'll use every hour Trump gives them searching for some way out of the trap they put themselves in by ignoring Trump's last deadline. Trump has to look at the bigger picture, including the risks (seen and unseen) of letting Tehran keep playing games.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: We needed to get rid of the dairy cartel, not sanctify it in law
By Lawrence L. Herman It never ends. On June 5, Yves-François Blanchet, the Bloc leader in Parliament, tabled Bill C-202, a private member's bill that's yet another regrettable effort to enshrine Canada's Soviet-style supply management system in the statute books. It legislates against any increased imports of dairy products, eggs and poultry — sectors the system protects from foreign competition — under Canada's current or future trade agreements. The Senate fast-tracked the bill, passing it on June 17 after it sailed through the House with virtually unanimous support. It's an unprecedented piece of protectionist legislation that favours this one group of farmers. C-202 is virtually identical to Bill C-282, which a Bloc member tabled in 2021 during the past Parliament. It was passed by the Commons in June 2023 and was still being examined in the Senate last November when Donald Trump was elected. It had been stalled there for almost two years and — mercifully — died on the order paper when this spring's election was called. As well as preventing imports, supply management is a quintessential barrier to internal trade, designed to protect local producers against out-of-province competition, whether in dairy, eggs or poultry. Under the influence of the well-financed dairy lobby, the Trudeau government and all the other parties supported Bill C-282 as it made its way through the House. This time round, however, it's hard to see how the Liberals could have voted in favour of a blatantly protectionist bill completely at odds with the Carney government's core policy of dismantling interprovincial trade barriers — and doing so before July 1, no less. While Blanchet and his Bloc colleagues have remained focused on currying favour with Quebec dairy farmers, there has been a sea change in the geopolitical context, most notably a dramatic deterioration in the Canada-U.S. relationship, with Trump targeting dairy import restrictions among the many trade assaults he's been directing at Canada. For Parliament to raise this protectionist fence higher is downright foolish — as was emphasized by experts over and over again during the debate on C-282 — and would seriously jeopardize our relations with the U.S. at this very sensitive juncture. That alone should have consigned C-202 to the Parliamentary dustbin. But some other factors that are not always fully aired should outrage Canadians when the facts are better understood. Consider the dairy sector as an illustration. First, to make supply management work, over the past 50 years governments at both federal and provincial levels have layered complexities onto the system, creating a mind-numbing process run by vast bureaucracies from coast to coast. This newspaper explained it all in a report compiled by staff about a year ago. At the top of the structure is the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) and its Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee (CMSMC). Each year, the CMSMC sets the allowable production volume for Canada as whole and the Commission then divides this up among the provinces, who parcel out the quota to their own producers, distributors, processors and consumers. The CDC then sets the farm-gate price for milk under what's called the National Pricing Formula. While consumers may think of milk as milk, under supply management milk is divided into five different classes and many sub-classes, based on what the milk is used for, whether as a consumer good or for further processing. The CDC applies the National Pricing Formula to set the annual farm-gate price in each class, with the price being different for each milk component — butter fat, proteins and solids. Provincial marketing boards then take all of this and, after even more consultations with industry players, determine who in their province is allowed to produce what, as well as where and to whom it can be sold, in what volume and at what price in that particular province. This goes on, year after year, involving scads of officials. Other industries, meanwhile, manage to decide prices and quantities without regulators' help. The point here isn't to go through all of these bureaucratic intricacies — details can be found in the FP report already referred to and on the CDC website — but to illustrate that in diary alone, the system is inordinately complex, difficult to penetrate, and run by large bureaucracies across the country. All this for the benefit of a few more than 9,000 dairy farms, compared, say, with Canada's 71,000 beef farms and 7,400 pig farms, which operate on the open market and receive no such guarantees. These numbers alone illustrate the inequities of this complex, over-staffed and costly system that exists to protect a small but highly favoured fraction of Canada's agricultural producers. When it comes to who runs the system, there's another set of issues that should outrage Canadians. It's run by insiders, persons with direct connections to the dairy industry, the same industry the system is supposed to regulate. For example, the CDC board is made up of persons with dairy industry connections, the chair being a dairy farmer himself. The Supply Management Committee is also weighted with industry players. At the provincial level, there's the same problem. All members of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, for example, are dairy farmers, a pattern replicated in the other provinces. It's hard to see where the public interest comes in. Jack Mintz: Don't expect big economic gains from lower interprovincial barriers Bjorn Lomborg: Freer trade isn't dead yet, which is a good thing for all of us All of this should have led to a derailment of Bill C-202 and for the Carney government to start to phase out supply management as an outdated, discriminatory, protectionist system, contrary to the public interest. Though C-202 has passed, the government could hold up the proclamation needed to bring it into force pending further developments in our trading relations. In the meantime, Canadians should be concerned both about supply management itself and about the outsized influence its lobbyists have in Ottawa. Lawrence L. Herman, international counsel at Herman & Associates, is a senior fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute. Sign in to access your portfolio
