The ‘Manosphere’ Liability: Why Reform UK is distancing itself from extreme online figures

As Reform UK attempts to transition from a disruptive force into a legitimate “government in waiting,” a familiar friction is emerging within the party ranks. Insiders are reportedly becoming increasingly alarmed by the party’s persistent associations with Andrew Tate and other “toxic” online personalities. The fear is simple: these links could alienate the very mainstream voters – particularly women – that Nigel Farage needs to secure a breakthrough in the May 2026 local and devolved elections.

The ‘Important Voice’ Trap: Farage and the Tate legacy

The core of the party’s anxiety stems from its leader’s historical rhetoric. While courting online popularity during Reform’s initial surge, Nigel Farage was often reluctant to criticize the “manosphere.” In 2024, Farage famously described Andrew Tate as an “important voice” for “emasculated” young men.

However, as Tate faces a series of serious legal charges, including human trafficking, those comments have become a strategic anchor. Reform sources suggest that “preparing for power” requires an end to these associations. The concern is that Tate’s misogynistic content and legal baggage now threaten to taint the party’s credibility just as it seeks to be taken seriously by the broader electorate.

The polling ceiling: A gendered divide

The logic behind this internal pivot is backed by cold hard data. Research from the polling company More in Common suggests that while extreme online figures might energize a “hardcore” base, they act as a repellent for the “wavering female voter.”

The Approval Gap: Among 2024 Reform voters, Andrew Tate holds a -34 approval rating. Among “new” Reform voters, that figure drops to -46.
The Gender Factor: Among women, Tate’s approval sits at a staggering -51.

Luke Tryl, who led the research, warns that these associations create a perception of extremism that “alienates the female voter who ultimately will decide whether Reform gets into government.” For many, the party represents a tempting “roll of the dice” against a miserable status quo, but that temptation vanishes if the party appears too toxic.

The celebrity liability: From Mar-a-Lago to the manosphere

The party’s “vetting headache” isn’t limited to candidates; it extends to its high-profile supporters. The recent presence of Lady Victoria Hervey at Reform events has raised eyebrows, particularly following her controversial comments regarding the Jeffrey Epstein files, in which she suggested that those not mentioned in the files were “losers.”

Similarly, the vocal support of Holly Valance presents a complex PR challenge. While she has been a significant fundraiser, her public endorsements of right-wing agitator Tommy Robinson – whom she described as undergoing a “redemption” – undermine the party’s official line that Robinson is “not welcome.” Even when candidates like Matthew Goodwin receive unwanted endorsements from Robinson, the failure to explicitly disavow them creates a “guilt by association” that the mainstream press is quick to highlight.

Reform’s real dilemma

The bottom line is that Reform is currently a party of two halves. On one side, you have a professionalizing machine led by the likes of Zia Yusuf, trying to build a credible 2026 electoral slate. On the other, you have the “anti-establishment” ghost of its past, where figures like Tate and Robinson are seen as brothers-in-arms against the “Matrix.”

If Farage doesn’t put clear, permanent distance between himself and the manosphere influencers, Reform risks hitting a hard electoral ceiling. You can’t be a party of “law and order” while your most famous cheerleaders are facing trafficking charges, and you can’t win over the British suburbs while your associates are calling abuse victims “prostitutes.” As the May locals approach, we’ll see if Reform has the discipline to stay in the mainstream – or if they’re stuck in the fringe.