Charity Under Reform: What a Reform‑Led Policy Agenda Could Mean for the Sector 

The Gorton and Denton by‑election has received significant national attention. With local elections approaching, many observers see it as a litmus test for the country’s political direction. Analysts at the University of Manchester note that while Labour won the seat comfortably in 2024, early indicators suggest that Reform could benefit from a split vote on the left, creating a more competitive contest than expected. In turn, this local contest prompts wider reflection on what a stronger national showing for Reform could mean, including its potential impact on the charity sector more broadly, as well as on Muslim charities specifically given the policy positions the Reform Party has outlined.  This raises important questions about how the third sector can respond proactively, safeguard its mission, and continue delivering impact in a shifting policy landscape. 

Reform UK’s website sets out its flagship immigration policies, including Policy 1: Stop the Boats, Policy 2: Secure and Defend Our Borders, and Policy 3: Deport Illegal Migrants collectively signal a policy direction that could create a far more challenging environment for charities supporting refugees and migrants. These policies emphasise withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights, expanding detention and deportation powers, and ending what they describe as “NGOs facilitating illegal migration,” alongside commitments to detain, and remove all individuals deemed to have entered the UK illegally. The scale and tone of these proposals ranging from a fully integrated deportation command to a five‑year mass removal programme with expanded detention capacity suggest that organisations providing humanitarian support, legal advice, or advocacy could face heightened legal, regulatory, and operational pressures. Such measures would likely reduce charities’ ability to deliver essential services, as increased enforcement may deter outreach work or complicate frontline provision. At the same time, funding and commissioning for migrant‑focused programmes could decline, as this work would no longer align with government priorities. Overall, these policies point to a potential chilling effect on the refugee and migrant support sector, with significant implications for its capacity and confidence to operate effectively. 

Reform UK’s Policy 18: Dramatically Cut Foreign Aid signals a policy direction that would significantly intensify pressures on an already overstretched international development and humanitarian charity sector. With Official Development Assistance (ODA) already in decline, proposals to dramatically reduce the aid budget (reportedly by up to 90%) would exacerbate structural funding gaps faced by charities operating in international development and humanitarian relief, where needs routinely exceed available resources. Charities and sector bodies have warned that cuts of this scale would not even cover the UK’s existing financial commitments to multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and the World Bank, undermining Britain’s international influence and standing. For charities, the operational consequences would be severe: organisations would likely be forced to close programmes, withdraw from crisis‑affected regions, and lay off staff, leaving vulnerable populations without essential support. Muslim‑led charities, which are heavily engaged in conflict zones and fragile contexts, would be particularly affected as both emergency response and long‑term development projects lose critical funding.  

These risks are compounded by the fragile financial position of the sector, with many charities having already depleted cash reserves in response to recent economic shocks, leaving little scope for further cost‑cutting without damaging long‑term capacity. Additionally, recentanalysis reported in The Lancet and summarised by Third Force News warns that ongoing aid cuts could lead to more than 22 million preventable deaths by 2030 including millions of young children. This highlights the immense human cost when global support for development and humanitarian assistance is withdrawn.  Against this backdrop, Policy 18 alongside wider commitments to reduce public spending would likely create a chilling effect across the international development sector, intensifying financial strain and weakening organisational resilience. 

Reform UK’s Policy 08: Scrap Net Zero to Cut Energy Bills signals a policy direction that could increase near‑term pressure on the charity and international development sector by weakening the UK’s climate commitments and amplifying global knock‑on effects A weakened UK commitment to climate action would also have significant global knock‑on effects. The UK’s own role in this context is significant: according to the Global Carbon Budget 2024, the UK remains the fifth‑largest contributor to cumulative global carbon emissions. Cutting net‑zero commitments therefore creates long‑term negative impacts that directly increase demand for charity services, while also acting as a catalyst for other states to weaken their own climate action. For Muslim charities and international development organisations, this combines with a proposed 90% reduction in overseas aid to frontline states to produce a severe double shock: rapidly rising humanitarian need alongside sharply reduced resources and operational capacity. The result is a widening gap between soaring need and shrinking funding, leaving charities overstretched and facing unprecedented pressure both domestically and internationally. 

Taken together, the combined effect of Reform UK’s policies on foreign aid, climate action, and migration points to a significantly more challenging environment for charities, particularly those working in international development, humanitarian assistance, refugee support, and climate response. In this context, public affairs engagement becomes a core strategic priority rather than an optional activity, and charities should begin reviewing their policy and engagement strategies now, ahead of the national election, to ensure they can engage constructively with all political actors, including Reform UK, while remaining strictly non‑party‑political and compliant with charity law. This requires charities to assess where engagement is most necessary at national, regional, and local levels and to identify realistic and evidence‑based policy asks. With local and regional elections also shaping policy environments, charities must map where Reform or other emerging parties hold influence and plan proportionate, responsible engagement that protects both mission and independence, reflecting guidance highlighted by Civil Society in In‑depth: How should charities engage with Reform UK? 

In building on this, charities will need to think carefully about what meaningful engagement with Reform UK could involve in practice, especially given the potential operational and funding implications of the party’s stated policy direction. This begins with developing a clear understanding of Reform UK’s manifesto and policies, as well as the platforms of any political party likely to form the next government or win the local parliamentary seat.  A review will enable organisations to identify which proposals relate directly to their mission areas, whether those concern international development, humanitarian response, migration, community cohesion, or climate resilience. Charities also need to consider that political influence does not sit solely at Westminster. National policies interact with decisions made by devolved administrations, mayoral combined authorities, and local councils, and these layers of government can shape commissioning opportunities, regulatory requirements, safeguarding practices, community outreach, and partnership arrangements in ways that affect day‑to‑day operations. 

To inform this mapping, organisations can use tools such as PollCheck, where entering a postcode provides current projections for the relevant constituency and insights into emerging political trends. This allows charities to understand where Reform UK or other rising parties may gain influence and helps them plan where engagement may become necessary. In parallel, charities should reflect on how their own policy messages are framed. Communicating the contribution, they make to sustainable growth, local economic opportunity, workforce development, and long‑term social stability can help decision‑makers understand the relevance and value of their work. This approach also supports charities in presenting their evidence in a way that remains fully non‑partisan and grounded in public benefit. 

However, at the same time, navigating this landscape requires a careful balancing act. Analysis from New Ways’ Founder, Letesia Gibson, in the piece titled Beyond ‘Engage or Not’: How charities govern proximity, legitimacy, and staff trust with Reform UK, highlights the risks of what she terms “drift”: the gradual softening of language or avoidance of naming harm in order to maintain access and funding. Such drift can reshape organisational culture and weaken anti‑racism and EDI commitments. Gibson stresses that charities must distinguish between supporting individuals who may vote for a party and legitimising that party’s ideology because the latter carries significant consequences for trust and relationships with marginalised communities. This will require discussion involving trustees, senior leaders, frontline staff, and where appropriate, community partners and service users. These conversations help clarify how engagement with Reform UK or any other political actor may be perceived, which risks are most significant, and what safeguards should be put in place. By taking a reflective and evidence‑driven approach, charities can ensure they engage only where there is a clear operational or strategic need, maintaining public trust while preparing for a political landscape that may shift significantly in the months ahead.  

In conclusion, the Gorton and Denton by‑election implores discussion about the potential impact that Reform’s stated policies could have on the charity sector. For charities working in refugee, migration and asylum support, climate response, and broader humanitarian assistance, the policies outlined by Reform point to a far more challenging operating environment. The sector will need to balance necessary engagement with firm protection of its values, and beneficiaries, ensuring it does not slide into the “drift” identified by Letesia Gibson. Preparing now strategically will be essential if charities are to continue delivering impact in the years ahead. Furthermore, internally assessing what meaningful and principled engagement with Reform will practically look like will be a critical part of this preparation. As a next step, MCF would suggest that the sector consider what forms of collective action may be appropriate in preparing for potential future regulatory changes.  These reflections may help organisations assess how best to anticipate and navigate shifts in the regulatory landscape.Moreover, MCF would also highlight the need for longer‑term sector‑wide assessment and the development of public‑affairs contingency plans that reflect the practical implications of a potential Reform‑led government, as well as the outcomes of upcoming local elections, ensuring organisations are prepared for multiple political scenarios.