As Reform UK gathers a head of steam, charities are asking themselves fundamental questions. Should they engage with the party on policy issues like they would with any other? Or should a party with very different values from many in the sector be beyond the pale for charity public affairs teams? We debated this topic at nfpResearch in one of our recent monthly knowledge meetings. Views were split. Some colleagues argued that charities must take the pragmatic approach and work with those in power. Others said engagement with Reform UK risks betraying the values many charities are built on.

I see the same split happening among our clients. In recent conversations, one director told me they are taking a “wait and see” approach. Another told a colleague that, of course, they are already engaging, because it looks likely that Reform will be in government in Wales next year.

This question is not going away. While some will say this discussion is based on a false assumption that Reform will gain power, Reform has already demonstrated it can win, as they have done in councils and mayoralties across England. They have also been consistently topping polls for most of 2025. If the trend continues, they will be hard to ignore.

Why some say yes

By law and definition, charities are not party political. They have a duty to beneficiaries to represent their needs to whoever holds power. Many service users and supporters will vote for Reform UK at the next election - a point that some will find as surprising as the fact that many donors read the Daily Mail. Failing to engage would risk excluding those voices. If Reform UK is polling significantly ahead of other parties (nationally or locally), who are we to judge? 

Reform is setting the media agenda and political weather. Many commentators have noted that Labour is closely watching what Reform are talking about and responding, as opposed to taking a more proactive and confident approach to governing. Anecdotally, we’ve heard of one example where Reform’s support for putting swift bricks in every new home (originally in the Labour party manifesto, but then dropped by the government) led to the campaign being called by Labour HQ. If Labour aren’t on board with your policy ideas, how about trying them with Reform as a way of getting their attention?

Reform is a very new political party and their policies are very thin on the ground. If Reform’s election successes continue, some say now is the optimal time to shape the party hierarchy’s agenda in your area. Forming relationships now could pay dividends if Reform were to get into power. 

And there are international lessons about taking a pragmatic approach to change. In the United States, George H. W. Bush promoted community action through his “Thousand Points of Light” initiative, urging charities and volunteers into the heart of American life. Later, George W. Bush launched PEPFAR, a global HIV/AIDS programme that transformed health in Africa. It has saved over 25 million lives.

Those examples show that charities can achieve a lot under more conservative or even sceptical governments, as long as they keep the focus on beneficiaries and outcomes. Even if you have fundamental disagreements with everything that Reform UK stands for, it is the very nature of political engagement to try and persuade, even if only slightly moderating their position on your issues.

Why others say no

Let’s start with an international example. In Germany, many charities have said they won’t engage with the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) – a far right party with 24% of the seats in the Bundestag. The president of the large protestant charity, Diakonie, has said that employees who vote for the AfD would lose their jobs as they “can no longer count themselves as part of the church, because the AfD’s inhumane worldview contradicts the Christian view of humanity”. This reflects the trend in Germany – charities and civic organisations overwhelmingly oppose engagement with the AfD. 

Some may argue that Reform is not the AfD. But Reform UK has a record of divisive statements. Nigel Farage has made inflammatory remarks about Muslims and refugees. Candidates have also been caught using racist language. 

Many charity staff and trustees will ask how their charity can engage with a party whose values are so different to their own. They will not view engagement as a neutral act, but rather an endorsement of Reform’s policies. Supporters and the public may share this view. 

For many charities, Reform is on the opposite side of the argument. Reform wants to end Net Zero targets. Greenpeace and others warn that this would damage the economy and stall progress on climate change. They plan to halve international aid, cutting refugee support and global development work. Nigel Farage has said there is a massive over-diagnosis of mental health conditions and would significantly cut disability benefits. Is there any potential here to really change Reform’s position? 

The tension

Charities are expected to stay impartial. That means engaging with all parties, not endorsing them. But neutrality has limits.

There are two real risks. One is failing to represent beneficiaries if Reform becomes a major force. The other is losing trust from staff, volunteers, donors, activists and wider society if engagement is seen as complicity.
Finding the right balance will be hard.

Conclusion

At nfpResearch, our internal debate showed both sides clearly. And our clients are already splitting into different camps: some holding back, others stepping forward.

For some, the duty to beneficiaries points one way. Values and reputation point in the other. 

Knowing more about Reform UK politicians and voters is, of course, important. Reform UK are not a big enough presence in Westminster to show up in our polling with MPs, though it may start appearing in our political research in Wales and Scotland from next year if the polls hold. But we do know that 51% of Reform voters have given to charity. And, while Reform voters are far less trusting of charities (and institutions in general), they significantly over-index on having UK Armed Forces as a favourite charitable cause. It is very important to understand this context before planning your approach. 

If Reform continues to rise, charities will need to engage with them in some form. But engagement must be cautious. It must be formal and transparent. It must never blur into endorsement.

That balance will be uncomfortable. But it may be the only way to stay true to both beneficiaries and value.