Two false dawns

Two different right-wing narratives died a painful but deserving death in Makerfield. Reform learned that anti-Labour outrage is not enough to sweep them to power. Restore learned that anti-immigration outrage has not drawn the masses to ethnonationalist traditionalism.

One popular narrative, in the run-up to the election, held that the Restore campaign might spoil things for Reform. In the end, it made little difference. Even if all of Restore’s voters went to Reform, Farage couldn’t have won. As Farage said after the result: “What really happened here was [that] it was ‘Vote Burnham, Get Starmer Out’, which of course, was our campaign message leading up to the locals on 7 May so we were slightly hoist with our own petard.”

For what it is worth, Restore’s voters almost certainly would have voted for Reform. Whilst turnout was higher than in that election, it was lower than 2019, 2017, 2015, and 2010 and, as Luke Tryl has noted, “there has been barely any shift between the left and right blocs in  Makerfield since 2024.” These are the same voters, re-allocating themselves: the major change is that the Conservatives polled over 10 per cent in that election. Their collapse to less than 1,000 votes was capitalised on by Reform, who increased their share from 31.8 to 34.5 per cent of the votes, and Restore, who gained 6.8 per cent.

The story around Restore’s first Parliamentary campaign ought to centre around the threat Restore pose to the Tories. They have replaced the Conservatives, to a significant extent, as thesecondary right-wing party behind Reform — a not insignificant achievement, despite Kemi’s best efforts — but that is not the narrative Restore themselves seem interested in. Throughout this election, they have focussed almost entirely on Reform. Given the importance of the result to national politics, the party has been criticised both for standing a candidate at all, and for running a campaign that barely mentioned the existence of Andy Burnham.

Restore are, to some extent, prisoners of their own existence

This is — as with most political failings — understandable when you understand the internal dynamics of the party. Restore are, to some extent, prisoners of their own existence. They would be far better described as a Reform splinter group than a free-standing party, with not only their leader but many of the party’s prominent members being former Reform (and, indeed, Conservative) members. A conventional political party seeks to build up coalitions of voters. Reform, even in their replacement of the Conservatives, is building a coalition that is obviously different to the Tories. Restore’s tactic in Makerfield was to target Reform voters, and Reform voters only.

“Targeting your most likely voters” is of course a sensible policy for most new parties, working as they do on limited data. But it doesn’t explain Restore’s complete focus on Reform. This might be explained by the fact that, as well as the clear personal bitterness felt by Rupert Lowe to Nigel Farage following his removal from Reform, many of the other members have seen their attempts to advance in the Conservatives or Reform come to nothing. The baked-in hostility to the existing “establishment” parties is therefore not just a question of policy, but of personal and professional advancement. To quote Charlie Munger: “never talk about anything else when you can talk about incentives.”

Alongside Restore has developed an almost stand-alone media ecosystem. Many of the Lotus Eaters — a right-wing podcast network hosted by Carl Benjamin, formerly known as Sargon of Akkad — are prominent supporters of Restore. Fred Skulthorp has written about another supporter, Young Bob, the political vlogger. Before the election, he was photographed in front of a van that read “Muslims for Reform”, allegedly driven by a man who has been heavily promoting Restore. Whilst there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Restore itself, it does cast doubt on the wisdom of such heavy association with an ecosphere of often young, often impulsive, often rather less than bright c-list e-celebs.

Nearly 7 per cent of the votes is not nothing — although it is less absolute votes than the BNP won in the seat in 2010. Thankfully for Restore, it was not enough votes to have cost Reform the win. Making Andy Burnham Prime Minister would have hung from their neck like an albatross: depending on the approach he takes to Shabana Mahmood’s immigration reforms, this could have been costly. In an interview, Rupert Lowe said he does not believe it makes any difference whether Starmer or Burnham is in No. 10. In many aspects, he is correct. On migration, unfortunately, he is not.

The pursuit of truth is the only reason the rape gangs scandal was bought back into the foreground of our politics: it must not, it cannot, be laid aside

Figures from Restore have also been behind the recent Rape Gangs inquiry, which my colleague Ben Sixsmith has addressed. He has written on the issue of unverified numerical claims in that report so ably that I can only add this point: the one thing the right has on our side is truth. The pursuit of truth is the only reason the rape gangs scandal was bought back into the foreground of our politics: it must not, it cannot, be laid aside.

Often, truth hurts. The truth for supporters of Reform and Restore is that there is no groundswell of support that is waiting to sweep them to power. It has to be earned.