Policy is the best insulation against error

In my previous post I set about dismantling Rupert Lowe’s “policy” tweet. But as the saying goes, the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it. Had I attempted a fully comprehensive deconstruction, I’d still be writing it next Tuesday. Sharp-eyed readers will note, however, that some of my critiques are lifted directly from manifestoproject.og.

That in its own way demonstrates the utility of pre-prepared policy. You can respond with attacks very rapidly and in a consistent way. Had Restore Britain undertaken the same effort, they could now attack Reform from a position of strength. But they didn’t. They’re attacking Reform’s foreign policy muddle today when they themselves do not have a foreign policy (unless you count one of Uncle Rupe’s tweets).

But this underscores the central problem with Restore Britain. Fundamentally, it is a social media engagement farming operation.

As I can tell you from experience, the effort to reward ratio for producing any kind of policy thinking is quite poor, while there is plentiful reward for posting low(e) effort populist slop. Since Restore is only focussed on harvesting social media engagement, no real effort will be diverted to policy. But time and again, though, Farage’s Reform party demonstrates what happens when you don’t have an intellectual foundation.

It has not gone unnoticed that Reform spokesmen routinely contradict each other and make it up on the fly, often contradicting themselves. The similar lack of a foundation in Restore will lead to the exact same basic errors.

Moreover, I cannot be the only person to notice that there is no substance to the lightweight drivel they’re tweeting. Consequently, the party increasingly looks like what it is. A one man band cult of personality. If Rupert Lowe drops dead in the near future (which can’t be ruled out) there is nothing to sustain his party.

If you have a working policy foundation you create guardrails for your future messaging and give yourself a credibility edge the other parties simply do not have. If you critique your own ideas, you spot the weaknesses before your opposition does. Furthermore, good policy reassures the people you do want to attract, while repelling the sort of people you categorically do not want.

This is a problem Restore has bumped into today with its hairline opposition to any involvement in the unfolding Iran situation. While nobody is salivating for British involvement in yet another middle eastern war (in light of the last two disasters), it’s still the case that the Iranian regime is a menace that threatens British interests and the instability it creates has direct ramifications for British politics. We should not be sorry to see the back of it, and if the USA has resolved to doing the world a favour, it is in our interests to facilitate it.

But in taking a hard line against any kind of British particpation, Restore has repelled quite a lot of its own natural supporters while picking up the support of those who believe America is Israel’s puppet and that this is a war of Zionist aggression. Cranks, basically. As much as anything, Restore’s stance is incoherent…

If it is Restore’s position that we should close the asylum system, then potential refugees should have no bearing on whether we act militarily in our own interests.

Moreover, if the Iranian regime is allowed to stay in place, eventually acquiring nuclear weapons, it can meddle in the middle east without fear of retaliation, thereby creating the very instability that causes displacement of people (namely Palestinians who we most certainly do not want). For sure, there are always risks and costs to intervention, but there are risks and costs to non-intervention. It should also be noted that if the Iranian regime is removed, a lot of Iranian dissidents resident in the UK can go home.

This issue, though, reveals a particular fault line on the British right. As one tweeter puts it, “There's a huge ideological split here between GenX/Xennials Vs the Zoomerwaffen. I can see strategically why it's in our national interest to stop Iran's nuclear programme and oppose the theocratic regime. Whereas the Zoomers think 'national interest' just means 'our back yard'“.

This is a similar divide we saw among Homeland Party supporters, and it ultimately proved to be irreconcilable. Restore now faces that same problem.

This is why I've never really been fully sold on doctrinal nationalism. It's solipsistic and myopic. The world does not leave us alone just because we cease to engage with it, and we still have stake in what happens overseas. Isolationism will not protect Britain from geopolitical disruption. An active foreign policy is a necessary component of controlling immigration.

Then, as much as anything, these regimes have a tendency to expire in flames regardless, and we still have to contend with the fallout. There's a price for choosing to be a passive spectator. You have no voice in shaping the outcomes. In recent years, the hard right has moved ever closer towards isolationism but in the real world. Every scenario must be judged on its own merits. While we did not instigate the attacks on Iran, they are very much instigated now, and it requires a grown-up and pragmatic response.

I did not intend for this post to be about Iran, but it does demonstrate why careful thought early on helps insulate a party against such divisive issues. Restore could have set out a basic moral framework for foreign policy that staked out a position against neocon adventures, but also sets out a criteria for defending our interests overseas.

Instead, Restore had to dream something up in the moment, and boxed itself into a corner. It is now moving closer to the model of doctrinal “horseshoe” nationalism that’s repellent to the kind of right wingers who would otherwise be drawn to Restore.

What I note on these matters is that the zoomer nationalists tend to be militarily illiterate which is a big part of why they oppose Israel. They see the devastation in Gaza and draw the same conclusions (genocide etc) as low IQ leftists who simply do not know what they’re looking at. As such, Rupert Lowe is letting the tail wag the dog here. Pandering to the zoomerwaffen is not doing his broader appeal any favours.

Regardless of the desire to stand on firm black and white principles, the world is seldom black and white, and if you’re going to build political alliances then there are compromises to make, and some positions must be intelligently triangulated. You have to think carefully about who you piss off and whether an issue is worth spending your political capital on it.

I do, however, leave room for the possibility that Restore intended to create this distance between them and traditional right wingers, moving the party closer to the far right end of nationalism. But if that is the case, it’s already dead in the water.