Reform UK has long faced criticism for being male-dominated, often portrayed as a party primarily for older men. In response, the Women for Reform panel at the party conference sought to showcase female voices at the forefront of its political message. Hosted by journalist Allison Pearson, the panel featured Sienna Church, Laura Anne Jones, and Leila Cunningham, who each positioned themselves as examples of women actively shaping the party’s agenda. Yet, a closer examination at what their rhetoric certainly does reveal that the session was just as much about image as substance, using female members simply as symbols to reinforce controversial policies rather than genuinely addressing women’s concerns.
To begin, Laura Anne Jones insisted that Reform UK is “a meritocracy,” where background, gender, and religion don’t matter, instead only competence and love for the country. Jones’ claim was presented as a neat rebuttal to accusations of blokiness, yet it collapses under scrutiny. The party’s own figures have undercut that message: Sarah Pochin, for example, has made openly discriminatory remarks about Islamic women in burqas, hardly the language of equal opportunity. The stagecraft of the conference itself deepened the contradiction. If merit truly dictated airtime, why were Reform’s leading women grouped together on a single panel, while their male counterparts enjoyed solo slots?
Likewise, Leila Cunningham compared leaving the Conservatives to leaving a broken marriage, saying the final straw was the resurfacing of grooming gang scandals, which she blamed on the inaction of both Labour and the Tories. The grooming gang scandals are yet another racist jab disguised behind the façade of feminist fear. The reality is that these failures were systemic and non-partisan: police, schools, and care systems all failed, not simply the government of the day. To suggest otherwise is to wilfully misdiagnose the problem. What is required is a redesign of the systems themselves, not partisan point-scoring, and, in truth, members of Reform in positions of power have also let victims down, however much they now depict themselves as righteous defenders.
Laura Anne Jones defended the Pink Lady protests, saying the women outside migrant hotels were mothers and daughters unfairly smeared as fascists, while Sienna Church added defiantly, “Bring it on. We know we’re on the right side of history.” Arguably however, the women outside migrant hotels are not political actors in any serious sense; they are fuelled by hate, not policy. To present them as “mothers and daughters” standing bravely against injustice is to romanticise something corrosive. These gatherings risk creating chasmic divides across Britain, not healing them. This is not protest born of principle, but an outgrowth of misinformation. When minority communities are made to fear leaving their homes, it ceases to be activism and becomes pure xenophobic cruelty.
On national pride, Laura Anne Jones insisted the Raise the Colours campaign is simply about celebrating the country, with St George’s and Welsh flags going up across Britain. Perhaps it has been misconstrued as harmless patriotism, but the Raise the Colours campaign cannot be divorced from its origins. It was begun by far-right groups such as Britain First and supporters of Tommy Robinson, with funds raised explicitly for this spectacle of flags. It is not a celebration of nationhood but a coded statement of xenophobia, crafted to provoke fear and unrest. Far from embodying British or Welsh values, it distorts them, turning symbols of shared heritage into weapons of exclusion. It is undignified, and it belongs firmly in the past.
All three women repeatedly framed Reform as the only party that genuinely protects women. Church contrasted this with Labour, saying: “We stand to protect women; Labour does the opposite.” This was clearly an opportunistic use of women’s safety to score political points. Church’s line collapses under inspection, for the panel’s rhetoric was narrow and selective. Again and again, they invoked grooming gangs and the rape of white girls, yet made no acknowledgement of the countless cases where white offenders attack women. Nor was there any real engagement with the broader issues that affect women’s lives, as safety was not discussed as a holistic social concern but weaponised as a political cudgel.
In reality, women are often silenced within Reform UK. At a local level, there are reports of women being ignored or harassed in party branches, while men dominate the higher roles. What appears as female elevation is often selective, designed to showcase diversity without actually addressing systemic inequality, a striking contradiction given Reform’s consistent denunciation of “diversity hires.” Zia Yusuf’s treatment of Sarah Pochin, particularly during her first speech in the Commons, further underscores the party’s misogynistic undercurrents, revealing that the promise of a “home” for women is largely performative.
It would be horrifically incorrect to suggest that the Women for Reform Panel was truly about women. Rather, Reform women were deployed as a symbolic shield in a wider culture war that has little to do with their lived realities.
Featured image via Reform UK on YouTube
