A rather tense clash between Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf and Good Morning Britain hosts Susanna Reid and Ed Balls has caused uproar thanks to the fiery nature of the exchange.
Joining the ITV show via video link on Monday morning, Mr Yusuf appeared on the breakfast show to discuss his party’s proposals to scrap indefinite leave to remain for thousands currently in the UK.
The policy, announced by party leader Nigel Farage last week, has faced its fair share of scrutiny, with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer going as far as to describe it as “racist” and “immoral”.
And another vocal critic appeared to be former Labour MP-turned-TV presenter Mr Balls, who unleashed a rather hostile grilling of Mr Yusuf during their interview on Monday.
Kicking off the discussion, Mr Balls quizzed: “So that I can understand who this applies to.
“So if you came here in the 1970s as an Asian person fleeing from Idi Amin’s policies in Uganda, you’ve lived here for 40 years, but you’re on a low income with independent leave to remain.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett Swear by the 5-Hour Rule. I Gave It A Go.Thousands swear by the learning routine of the 5-Hour Rule. I gave it a go to see what all the fuss is about.Finance & Career
“Under your policy, if your income is too low, then you would be asked to leave?” Mr Balls asked, to which Mr Yusuf plainly replied: “No, because you would have a pathway to citizenship. So the pathway to citizenship remains.”
Mr Balls attempted to cut Mr Yusuf off, but Reform’s Head of the Department of Government Efficiency stood firm: “And most of the people you’re describing there, Ed, would have already claimed citizenship.
“So again, what constantly happens is this hysterical referral to some hypothetical that largely does not exist.”
Both Ms Reid and Mr Balls quickly reacted to the accusations of hysteria, with the former cutting in: “No, we’re just trying to get clear who you’re targeting!”
Mr Balls then continued his grilling: “So if you came here from Hong Kong in 2020, escaping there because you were a refugee and were given a citizenship, an independent leave to remain from Boris Johnson’s government, or you are on track to get that, would you now lose that if there was a Reform government?”
Mr Yusuf explained again: “For those who have come here from Hong Kong as part of that VNO visa program, those people, a significant portion would qualify for the work visa if they wanted to do that.
“And if they didn’t, there would be a humanitarian visa that would continue to be available to them, and ultimately, a citizenship.”
“And Afghanistan, if we’re talking Afghanistan-” Mr Balls yelled as he tried to interrupt again, only for Mr Yusuf to continue: “We are talking about 3.8 million non-EU migrants who came here under Boris Johnson, who are going to be hundreds of billions of pounds worth of a drain on the British taxpayers’ purse. We can ill afford it, and it’s totally unfair for them to go to work to pay for that.”
Mr Balls kept his line of questioning the same as he weighed back in: “But I thought you said those who came here on the post-Brexit deal agreed with the EU wouldn’t have this policy applied to them.
“I mean, listening to you speaking, if you came from Uganda, if you came from Hong Kong, as I understand it, if you came from the EU, you’re going to say, actually, either you’re going to become a citizen, or you’re going to be on a new humanitarian visa. Who are the people you’re actually going to deport? I mean, isn’t this a bit of a con?”
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage unveiled his plan to axe Indefinite Leave to Remain last week
| PA“Ed, either I misheard you, or you referred to Uganda and Hong Kong as inside the EU. Obviously, those are not countries in the EU-” Mr Yusuf mocked, prompting Mr Balls to fire back: “No, no, I didn’t say that. I said from Hong Kong, or Uganda, or from the EU. Don’t be silly, Zia.”
Reform’s Head of Doge attempted to explain once more: “Here are the facts, Ed. There were 3.8 million people brought in as part of what we call this ‘Boris-wave’.
“Against the wishes of the British people who voted for less immigration… Over 90 percent of those people are from non-EU countries. And any sensible, reasonable estimate of the cost of those people to the British taxpayers, the majority of whom are dependents, half of them do not work and never will, will be hundreds of billions of pounds.
“Those are the people that we are primarily concerned about. But we make no apologies for this. British welfare, welfare funded by the British taxpayer, will not be payable to foreign nationals. And it is unacceptable that that continues to happen.”
Mr Balls continued his tirade: “You said you were going to deport illegal immigrants, but these people came here legally. How many of them will you deport in the first parliament of a Reform government in order to make these savings that you say you can make?”
Mr Yusuf again had an answer: “Well, the most important thing is that we’re going to stop the benefits from going to people who are those foreign nationals. That’s the thing that’s going to save people money.
“And once that happens, all the evidence, if you look at sensible countries around the world, with serious immigration policies and successful immigration policies, and by the way, uphold their borders, those people leave of their own accord. But again, we make no apologies for this.
“Under a Reform government, yes, we will enforce immigration law. I know that might sound to some people hysterical in a political establishment because that hasn’t happened for decades. But I think British people expect our borders to be upheld.
Sir Keir Starmer accused Reform UK of promoting a ‘racist’ policy on immigration | PA“Look, just over the weekend, just yesterday, 125 illegal migrants crossed the channel in a single boat. That’s a record. The only thing that Labour is doing is breaking records in some kind of new industrial revolution inside the illegal dinghy market.
“Our borders are porous, the British people are sick and tired of it, Ed. And I’m sorry, calling them racist, calling them racist simply will not work,” he signed off in a thinly-veiled dig at the PM.
Footage of the debate was soon shared across social media once Ms Reid and Mr Balls had put Mr Yusuf in the firing line, and it’s safe to say many weren’t too pleased with the “contempt” shown towards the politician.
Taking to X, several viewers applauded Mr Yusuf’s retort to Mr Balls’ probes, including one who wrote: “Zia Yusuf made it totally clear at least four times who the Reform party was targeting, unfortunately Ed Balls and Susanna Reid didn’t seem to hear him, it was a clear and concise interview where Yusuf answered every question articulately, Susanna Reid rendered speechless.”
“Virtue signalling activists, posing as journalists – well done Zia, great work. Vote @reformparty_uk to save Britain,” a second argued before a third hit out: “Ed Balls is a biased, pro Labour embarrassment to broadcasting.”
Elsewhere, a fourth fumed: “The tone in the line of questioning to Zia was borderline hysterical. It’s clear who they are targeting. 1. ALL who have come illegally 2. Those here with ILR AND who have never contributed to society (net drain). Not difficult to understand, even for a couple of MSM puppets.”
And a fifth agreed: “What a farce. @edballs and @susannareid100, hang your heads in shame; your contempt, attitudes and body language towards @ZiaYusufUK spoke volumes about you and @GMB. The way you continually pressured him and did not allow him to provide context to the questions was shocking.”
“He told you in very clear language a number of times but you didn’t want to hear him,” a sixth weighed in. “Ed and Susanna aren’t unbiased journalists by any stretch of the imagination, especially when one of them is married to a Labour cabinet minister. Well done Mr Yusuf. You now have my vote.”
However, Ms Reid and Mr Balls did receive the support from a handful who felt Mr Yusuf floundered under scrutiny from the pair.
One critic penned: “Reform have no policies, the only thing I heard was small boats that’s all they have. Zia kept changing his mind and got himself confused. Shameful that the media gives them so much airtime.”
And a second suggested: “He hasn’t really answered the question. What happens to a foreign born national that has worked here for decades and is about to reach retirement age? Do they get told to leave?” (sic)
