The cracks are showing already

Nigel Forrester, of Pimlico Journal, has come under attack from Restore supporters. Some are accusing him of being funded by Peter Thiel, specifically to attack Restore. The subtext here being that anyone criticising the new messiah is a subversive Jew. I almost feel left out!

I don’t know exactly what precipitated this, nor am I interested enough to find out (I assume it has something to do with this), but Forrester has fired back with both barrels.

Like most others, I was a fan of Rupert Lowe whilst he was in Reform, and for a while even after he was kicked out. I will have to check my newsletters at the time, but I know I attributed much of the tension between Lowe and Farage before his removal to being the fault of Farage and Zia. I even gave Lowe the benefit of the doubt and speculated that the reason for him giving the (apparently foolish) interview in which he seemed to say that Farage would not be a good Prime Minister, precipitating his removal from Reform, was to get in ahead of Farage before he was removed anyway. (I now seriously doubt that this interpretation is accurate.) At this time, I gave Yusuf significant credit for professionalising the party by isolating some of the worst of Farage’s ‘old guard’, but ideologically, I did not trust him at all. Lowe’s removal appeared as a hit-job by a self-promoting outsider. This was also a time in which Reform were at their most left-wing, endorsing the abolition of the two-child benefit cap and even counter-signalling Jenrick on migration, before they pivoted strongly to the right later in the year.

As such, I originally supported Lowe — very firmly — in this dispute. Furthermore, while politics is always nasty, the character of his removal did not reflect well on Farage and Yusuf, to say the very least.

I remain unhappy about some of the events when Lowe was removed (especially the police call). As events developed, I kept hoping there might be some chance for reconciliation. And yet, I cannot still say it is sad that he is no longer in Reform.

It has now become clear that Rupert Lowe is totally incapable of working within a political party that is serious about winning a general election. He is extremely vulnerable to flattery, allowing some people who are manifestly incapable (and do not even share his ideological views) into his inner circle. He is rhetorically extreme (or, more accurately, allows someone who is rhetorically extreme to squat on his social media accounts) while supporting actual policies that are functionally identical to Reform.

When challenged in the media, he is irritable, brittle, and unpersuasive. This may be why he is allowed very few interviews nowadays. And, most obviously, he gave an interview effectively openly calling for the removal of the party leader — something that would get you suspended from any functional political party! That is before going into Lowe’s behaviour, not much discussed at the time, during the 2019 General Election that so infuriated Farage and many of his activists.

Not unreasonably, Lowe is still angry at how he was treated by Yusuf and Farage. But in interviews (such as with David Starkey), when asked why he is launching his new party, he gives this basically *personal* dispute as his main motive — as if the country is less important than getting his ‘revenge’. And as almost no one in Restore actually believes they can win an election, their main effect, if they do get anywhere, will be to split the right-wing vote in an FPtP system. They stand almost zero chance of winning any seats except Great Yarmouth. We can question the morality of the events of 2025 — but the country comes first.

Meanwhile, since this time, Zia Yusuf has been one of Reform’s strongest media performers. He has consistently pushed British politics, and Reform, to the right. He and his faction are also clearly the most competent element within Reform. I was wrong: Yusuf is what Reform needs, not Lowe. And again: Yusuf may have wronged Lowe, but the country comes first. Politics is always a nasty business, and the next election now matters far too much to focus on this.

In a second tweet he further ventures:

Everything about the story behind Restore Britain’s launch as a party is fundamentally untrue. It is correct that Lowe came to Reform’s policy positions earlier — or more probably, was willing to state them publicly earlier — but as of 2026 their policy platforms are virtually identical. This is clear from Lowe’s interviews.

They launched on the premise that Reform were now the Tories, yet I have it on good authority that for some time important people within Lowe’s circle wanted him to defect to the Tories rather than start his own party. Restore Britain had Tories on their board. Lowe has been given select committee positions by the Tories. I also know from my newsletter coverage that the Tories openly courted Lowe (including Chris Philp), and Lowe never once shut this down. Indeed, he seemed to encourage the speculation. If he is so opposed to the Tories, why not say he is?

To be fair to the people behind Lowe, I do not think they are either venal or deliberately treacherous. I do not think they are actually doing this to farm clicks or to loot the enormous funds raised by Restore Britain. I also do not think it is a ‘Tory plot’ (just that the premise behind Restore is basically dishonest). I think they have gotten drunk from the opportunity their control (and I use that word deliberately) of Lowe has granted — and the illusion of power given by social media — and, frustrated by being locked out of influence within Reform, have launched a foolish project that they themselves will soon regret. Already, they are finding it difficult to manage the unrealistic expectations of many people online, who seem to assume that not just Lowe but the crowd around Restore endorse far more extreme positions than they actually do (or at least are willing to voice publicly). The disappointment as soon as (say) Downes is forced to deny on television that he wants ‘total remigration’ of all non-white people will be palpable. Or when Lowe himself repeatedly endorses virtually identical policies to Farage. And, at worst, in the unlikely case that Restore actually captures a few percent of the vote at the next election, they could destroy maybe our last chance, even if you (wrongly, in my view) think Reform is inadequate, to at least stabilise our country. The alternative — perhaps even a left-wing coalition headed by Polanski — is too dire to countenance.

While this analysis leans heavily in favour of Reform, there’s a lot here that rings true. Lowe is not a skilled politicians and I certainly recognise truth in the assertion he is “irritable, brittle, and unpersuasive”. And while I congratulate myself for predicting Lowe’s departure from Reform, it couldn’t have been more obvious Lowe was already walking towards the exit, undermining his own party in the process. While the behaviour of Farage and Yusuf was thoroughly dishonourable, Lowe did everything to invite it.

Forrester is also completely correct to say that Lowe is primarily motivated by his vendetta, and his project is being steered by his juniors who don’t even share his Thatcherite ideology. These are ambitious young men in a hurry to make their mark on the world, but they’ve very much bitten off more than they can chew. Turning a large register of interest into a functional organisation is for beyond their abilities. That is not to say they are not capable chaps, but it’s no small task ahead of them. It simply cannot be done in two years.

Forrester is also right to note the ideological fault lines. In most areas Restore and Reform are near identical, but the schism on immigration policy leads down certain dark alleys from which there is no return. That Restore’s supporters are accusing Forrester of being funded by Jews tells you all you need to know. (Peter Thiel is not Jewish but the online right insists he is).

Regardless, it’s comforting to see that I’m not the only one to have noticed. When you look at all the constituent parts and how they fit together (or not) it’s easy to see why Restore simply doesn’t translate into anything coherent.

Still, though, this has to run its course. We should remind ourselves again that Restore only exists because of the manifest deficiencies of Reform - which are not trivial. While there’s much truth in what Nigel Forrester says, everything Rupert Lowe said about Reform last April was true, and remains true. There is still a major appetite for something with more teeth.

But while Forrester notes Reform and Restore are near identical in terms of policy (insofar as either have any) they are also identical in their approach. They both operate on an “it’ll do for now” basis, backfilling the details later. The Ukippy pathological amateurism is in the DNA of both organisations.

What gives Restore a little bit of extra mileage is Lowe’s rape gang inquiry which will soon dominate the press for a few weeks. Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch no doubt spots an opportunity to massage the Reform/Restore split, seeing Lowe as a tool with which to weaken Farage. Don’t be surprised if Lowe is accused of active collusion with the Tories.

This will only heighten the infighting between Restore and Reform, going some way to cancelling each other out. Infighting will only serve to expose the dysfunctionality of both enterprises. While critics of Restore are presently few in number, it will be harder to escape the reality that we have something of a point.