People should be able to trust that those seeking public office will treat the communities they serve with equal respect. When that trust is broken, the public deserves to know how it happened and what will change.
Commission an independent review. Publish the findings.
CLA is asking Reform UK to open its candidate vetting, complaint handling and leadership oversight to independent scrutiny.
Our requested response date is 30 October 2026. We ask for the reviewer, scope and timetable to be published within a further 30 days. These are campaign requests, not statutory deadlines.
The questions a resignation leaves behind
ITV Exposure’s investigation reported racist, misogynistic and violent remarks by Reform representatives. Its reporting raises questions about the checks made before candidates were selected and the response to concerns about their conduct. [1]
A departure may address an individual’s position in a party. It does not explain what was checked, whether earlier warnings reached the right people, or whether the same weaknesses could recur. Those are questions an independent review should answer.
For CLA, this is a civil liberties issue: equal treatment and the ability to participate in public life depend on institutions taking discriminatory conduct seriously. That requires evidence, accountability and a fair process.
What was checked?
Which checks were required and actually completed? Who approved the candidates, including people transferring from other parties, and how were concerns assessed?
What was known?
Were concerns raised before the reporting? Who received them, what records survive, and what decisions followed?
What will change?
Which weaknesses are established by the evidence, who will put them right, and how will the public know that the changes have been made?
Reform’s response belongs in the record
Reform told ITV that investigations and some suspensions had begun and that it had improved its vetting. Nigel Farage also argued that vetting cannot predict what people will say in future. [1] [2]
No selection process can offer that guarantee. A review can establish whether reasonable checks were made, warnings were acted on and the response was adequate. Our public tracker distinguishes existing public statements from replies to CLA.
What a credible review would involve
Our open letter sets out the request. These are the practical tests we would use to assess a review offered in response.
- A reviewer with real independence. Publish their identity, relevant experience, funding arrangements and conflicts of interest. Explain any restrictions on their work.
- Access to the records. Preserve relevant selection files, complaints and decision records. Let the reviewer examine them and report material gaps or refusals of access.
- A scope that tests the system. Examine the reported cases and a clearly explained sample of other selection files. The evidence should determine whether problems extend further; neither isolation nor wider failure should be assumed.
- A fair hearing. Give people affected by adverse findings a meaningful opportunity to respond. Protect complainants and witnesses, and distinguish disputed allegations from established findings.
- Findings the public can assess. Publish the method, findings and recommendations without leadership rewriting the conclusions. Explain necessary privacy redactions and any other limits on publication.
- Changes that can be checked. Set out who is responsible for each recommendation, a delivery date and public progress updates. An announcement alone would not complete the work.
These are CLA’s proposed standards. They are not a description of a review already agreed or underway.
From a public request to a public answer
The response tracker holds the dated correspondence record, individual case summaries and their source-check dates.
-
16 October 2026 · Campaign launched
The open letter was published and emailed to Reform UK. Status enquiries were sent to Solihull, Bromley and Tameside councils, as recorded in the tracker.
-
23 October 2026 · Planned council follow-up
CLA’s working date to review replies and outstanding questions about office status, formal processes and public outcomes.
-
30 October 2026 · Response requested
We have asked Reform to say whether it will commission an independent review.
-
Within a further 30 days · Review arrangements requested
We ask for the reviewer’s identity, conflicts, terms of reference and reporting timetable to be published.
Sending a request does not establish receipt, agreement or endorsement. An acknowledgement, substantive reply and completed outcome are different things. An unanswered email is not evidence of wrongdoing.
Help obtain answers
Share the request. Send the open letter to people who want accountable public institutions. Ask whether they support an independent review with published findings.
Follow the evidence. Use the tracker when discussing a case, and check the date and source attached to each entry.
Send something we can check. A public document, original recording or dated statement is more useful than a rumour. Include the source link, date and a short explanation of what it establishes.
For an initial email, send public links and brief context. Please do not include sensitive personal information or confidential material.
Questions about the campaign
Is leaving a party the same as leaving public office?
No. Party membership, council-group membership and holding elected office are separate matters. We record each separately and use a dated source for changes, rather than infer that a party departure has created a council vacancy.
Does this campaign establish that a law was broken?
No. We distinguish reporting, allegations, investigations and formal findings. The review we seek concerns party governance. Any council standards or criminal process has its own remit and must be assessed separately.
Are you saying every Reform representative is implicated?
No. The reported cases do not establish how widespread misconduct is. That is why we ask for a properly explained audit rather than draw conclusions about people for whom there is no evidence.
How does CLA’s own political position affect this work?
Our founder is a Labour Party member. We disclose that interest and ask readers to judge our claims against the linked evidence. We apply the same standards of sourcing, response and correction across parties. Read our funding and interests statement.
Sources and standards
This campaign responds to ITV’s conduct investigation. The separate Channel 4 funding investigation is outside its scope. CLA has reviewed the linked reporting; we do not have the full unpublished footage or internal party files.
- ITV News: Inside Reform — councillors and candidates’ extreme and racist views on camera. Published 14 October 2026. The original reporting and Reform’s statement.
- ITV News: Calls for Reform councillors to resign after “chilling” ITV investigation. Updated 15 October 2026. Follow-up reporting and responses. Later office-status changes should be checked against dated records.
- CLA’s open letter, 16 October 2026. The full request, proposed timetable and review safeguards.
- CLA’s accountability tracker. Dated case records, correspondence status, updates and corrections.
We retain dates and context, seek responses before publishing significant new adverse findings, and correct material errors. New leads must be checked before they become public claims. Read how we build our evidence.
The two ITV source pages were checked for this campaign-page update on 18 October 2026. Individual case and correspondence checks carry their own dates in the tracker. This page update does not imply those records have all been reverified.