Rupert Lowe Sets Out Five Conditions for Working With Nigel Farage

Rupert Lowe says he can work with Nigel Farage – but 5 conditions must be met

The leader of Restore Britain issued a message to Mr Farage and Reform UK this morning.

ADAM TOMS

The Express: continue reading

See Related Article Below

Rupert Lowe: Performance or Politics?

GAWAIN TOWLER

Rupert Lowe released a video this morning. It is beautifully made. Someone has been paid properly for the lighting, the grade, the slow push-in on a man composing his features into statesmanship. Inside it is an offer. Reform UK and Restore Britain should put personal differences aside and work together, as Lowe says they have already done at local level, against a coming left-wing alliance that will finish off what hope remains for this country.

Take the sentiment at face value for a moment. Then ask a question of chronology.

How long ago was it that this same man was saying Nigel Farage must never become Prime Minister? Not that Reform needed a frontbench, a succession plan and proper structures. That was the reasonable version of the complaint, and a good many had quiet sympathy with it at the time. No. What he demanded was that Farage must never hold the office at all. That was the stated purpose, pursued at volume, on every platform that would have him, for the better part of eighteen months.

So what has changed, what has the Manchester result actually delivered?

On Thursday, Greater Manchester elected Bev Craig. She took 251,449 first preferences, 47.1%. Reform’s Sian Astley took 111,928, 21%. In the run-off Craig finished on 309,525 to Astley’s 157,178, two thirds against a third. Turnout was 25.1 per cent, lower than 2017, lower than 2021, lower than 2024.

Restore’s candidate, Marlon West, took 46,289 votes and 8.7 per cent, finishing fourth. The Conservative and former UKIP guy, Phil Eckersley, took 41,021 and 7.7 per cent, finishing fifth. Lowe’s video says the Greater Manchester result showed what Restore Britain can deliver.

What did it deliver, precisely?

It came fourth. It was beaten comfortably by the Green Party, which took 64,968 votes. It beat the Conservative Party by 5,268 votes in a conurbation where the Conservative Party has effectively stopped campaigning. Add every Restore first preference to every Reform first preference and you reach 158,217, still ninety thousand short of Labour’s first round on its own. Nobody split anything in Manchester. There was no prize on that table to be taken away.

That is the honest reading. But it is also why the boast is so revealing. Lowe is not claiming Manchester as a win. He is claiming it as leverage. Eight point seven per cent is worthless as a route to office and lethal as a route to obstruction, and he understands that arithmetic better than anyone. Under first past the post, in the eighty or ninety Westminster seats that will decide the next Parliament, eight per cent is not a movement. It is a wrecking bar. He knows it. We know it. The Labour desk officers modelling next May know it, and were cheering about it by Friday lunchtime.

Meanwhile at Tory HQ in Mathew Parker St in Westminster a pall descended. Spare a thought for the Conservatives, since nobody else will.

Their candidate finished fifth, behind a party that did not exist in law before February, in a region of two and a quarter million voters. Fifth. Below the Greens by twenty-four thousand, below a fortnight-old insurgency by five. There is no spin available. There is no borough to point at, no ward to hold up, no line about a difficult national picture that survives contact with the sheet.

The internal argument in CCHQ is no longer about strategy. It is about whether the machine can physically stand a general election. Every association treasurer looking at that column on Friday morning drew the same conclusion, which is that the money and the bodies have gone and are not coming back. Kemi Badenoch’s difficulty is not that she is losing an argument on the right. It is that in Greater Manchester her party has become a rounding error, and the people who fund it now have two other addresses to send the cheque to. Watch the autumn. Watch who does not renew.

Now to Rupert’s offer itself, which is where his performance shows its seams.

This is not an open hand. It comes with conditions. Reform is asked to reverse course on a list of positions, among them a referendum on the death penalty and a ban on halal and kosher slaughter. Both are settled Restore policy. Both are known to be positions Reform are unlikely to take.

That is not an olive branch. That is a demand engineered to be refused, offered in public so that the refusal can be filmed. It is the oldest move in the book and it is not even well disguised. Lowe is not asking Farage to unite the right. He is asking Farage to become Rupert Lowe, and then intends to spend the autumn touring the studios explaining that he, Rupert, the bigger man, tried. It is self serving nonsense

Consider what a serious approach would have looked like. Lowe has Farage’s mobile number. He has had it for years. He knows where the office is, he knows every officer of the party by name, dammit, he has my number, and he sat in the parliamentary party until March of last year. Any man genuinely seeking accommodation picks up the telephone, says nothing publicly, and does the work in private over six weeks. That route was available this morning and every morning since. He chose a production company instead. The medium is the message, and the message is that the audience matters more than the outcome.

Yes, Restore stood aside in Clacton. He will say so, and it is true. It is also free. Standing a candidate against Farage in Clacton would have cost Lowe a deposit and delivered him a humiliation, at a moment when every other party had already announced a boycott. Declining to do the obviously stupid thing is not magnanimity. Note also the timing of today’s gesture, arriving eleven days before that poll, while Farage is under scrutiny he could do without. Lowe has chosen the moment of maximum embarrassment to apply pressure and called it generosity.

Lowe says the two movements have worked together at local level. Test it against the ground.

In Kent, Restore’s group of seven sits in County Hall as the third largest bloc. Six of those seven were expelled from Reform before they joined him. Their conduct since has not been co-operation with Reform. It has been the assembly of blocking majorities with the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and whoever else is available, on committee after committee, against a Reform administration that holds 47 of 81 seats and is trying to govern. In Norfolk, the arrangement with Great Yarmouth First is a truce of the coldest kind, useful to Restore, corrosive to everyone else, and nobody involved pretends otherwise in private.

That is the local record. It is not partnership. It is a spoiler operation with letterhead.

I would say all of this and still leave the door open, because much of what Restore says about immigration, about the asylum system, about the state’s contempt for the people who pay for it, is not wrong, and I have said versions of it myself for twenty-five years.

But there is one matter on which no door stays open.

A party that proposes to ban kosher slaughter is not making a point about animal welfare. It is telling the oldest continuous religious community in this country that its practice is provisional and its presence conditional. Lowe’s own remark about a Jewish camera, and his response when it surfaced, which was that he could not remember saying it and that if he did it was a joke, tells you how seriously he takes the question. The Board of Deputies asked for an apology. It did not come. Meanwhile a cohort has assembled around Restore that no serious patriotic party would tolerate for a fortnight, and Lowe has never once been willing to name it, still less to expel it.

That is not squeamishness on my part. It is the difference between a party that could govern and a party that cannot be allowed to. Any movement that will not police its own edges will eventually be defined by them, and the men currently gathering at those edges are not confused about what they are joining.

We do not take the bait, and we do not spend August answering it.

We hold Kent and we govern it properly, because the audit trails coming out of those councils in eighteen months will do more for us than any amount of studio time. We select and train candidates in the marginals that decide power. We keep saying the things we believe about borders, about the cost of the state, about restoring decisions to the people they land on. Some of those things Restore also says, and we do not stop saying them because he says them too. That would be its own kind of vanity.

But we should be clear about what happened this morning. A man of sixty-eight, a man elected twice on the coattails of Nigel Farage, who has spent eighteen months declaring that his purpose was the destruction of Nigel Farage, has looked at 8.7% in a nationally ignored by-election and concluded that his moment is now or never.

It is not unity he wants. It is relevance, and he is in a hurry for it.

••••

••••

••••

••••