CATHERINE BLAIKLOCK
Nigel Farage has spent three decades presenting himself as the anti-establishment insurgent, the plain-speaking outsider who will finally give voice to ordinary people. And yet, when you examine the record, a very different picture emerges — one of self-promotion, internal purges, and promises quietly shelved the moment they become inconvenient.
Nowhere is that contradiction more glaring than in Reform’s relationship with the Conservative Party — the very institution that broke Britain in the first place.
Cast your mind back across the fourteen years of Conservative government, record immigration not reduced, illegal channel crossings spiralling into the tens of thousands, a grooming gang scandal left to fester for decades without serious political will to confront it, net zero commitments that hammered ordinary households, public services crumbling, national debt soaring. The Conservatives did not merely fail — they failed comprehensively, on every metric that matters to the people who voted for them. And the politicians who presided over that failure? They are now flooding into Reform UK.
Which brings us to Nadhim Zahawi. Here is a man who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer for a grand total of two months before being shuffled out during the chaos of Boris Johnson’s collapsing government. He then became Conservative Party chairman while HMRC was investigating his tax affairs, eventually leading to his dismissal by Rishi Sunak amid what Number 10 described as a “serious breach of the Ministerial Code.” And yet in January 2026, Nigel Farage welcomed Zahawi into Reform with open arms, announcing the defection with evident pride. Reform’s own base was appalled. Councillors began quitting immediately, one describing Zahawi as “hated” among patriotic voters who remembered exactly what the Conservative years had delivered. Suella Braverman, Robert Jenrick, a parade of Conservatives who sat around Cabinet tables and delivered nothing — all now welcome in Farage’s party, provided they bow to his leadership and repeat his lines about Britain being broken. Broken by them.
Rupert Lowe would not stand for it. Elected as one of Reform’s five MPs in 2024, he quickly became its most effective parliamentary voice by an enormous margin. While Farage glad-handed donors and toured television studios, Lowe was in the chamber doing the actual work — filing 958 parliamentary questions to hold the government to account. The comparison with his leader is devastating. When Reform finally removed Lowe’s whip, the party’s total parliamentary activity collapsed by 46 per cent. Nearly half of everything Reform did in parliament was Rupert Lowe. Farage’s response to this was not gratitude — it was suspension, a police referral, and a coordinated smear campaign. Every charge was subsequently dropped. Lowe did not slink away. He built something instead.
And this gets to the heart of why Farage simply cannot be trusted. In a revealing interview with GB News presenter Steven Edginton, Farage admitted that mass deportations were a “political impossibility” and that he was not going to get dragged down that route. This is the man who now claims he would deport hundreds of thousands. He said one thing when it was inconvenient, then reversed himself entirely when the political wind changed. Every illegal immigrant, every foreign criminal, every scrounger with no right to be here — Restore Britain says millions need to go and means it. Farage, on the other hand, has already told you what he really thinks. He thinks it’s impossible.
Restore Britain launched as a pressure group in June 2025 and became a full political party in February 2026. It now has 127,000 members, having overtaken the Conservative Party — an institution with over three centuries of history — in a matter of weeks. That is not a cult of personality. That is a genuine movement built on genuine anger.
On policy, Restore Britain goes where Reform will not. Lowe has published a detailed 133-page document on mass deportation and net-negative immigration. He crowdfunded over £600,000 for an independent grooming gangs inquiry. Not a promise. Action.
And Lowe has been prepared to say what no other politician will dare. He has addressed the demographic reality directly: the Muslim population is set to grow and grow, demands for political Islam will spread alongside it, and British people are already being expected to permanently alter their way of life for those who would not show us the same respect. His response is a Restore Britain government that bans halal slaughter, the burqa and niqab, cousin marriage and sharia courts. The Islamic call to prayer blaring across British towns would be banned. Foreign nationals who refuse to work, claim benefits, cannot speak English or hate Britain would be deported. He has received death threats for saying these things. His answer is simple: go to Tower Hamlets, Bradford, Rochdale, Leicester, Blackburn, Birmingham and walk around. Colonisation, he says, is the right word. Farage has pathetically said that if we alienate Islam we will lose. Starmer panders to the Muslim vote hoping the crocodile eats him last. The Conservatives accelerated the process. All too weak, all too late.
Lowe puts it plainly: there is finally a serious political party with the courage to do what needs to be done. Restore Britain. Join us.
If you would like to get involved and help at a local level, Rupert Lowe’s local party Great Yarmouth First welcomes your support. They meet Monday to Saturday at 9.45am at their office near Gapton Industrial Estate, before heading out as a group to canvass and leaflet the local area — a great way to meet like-minded people and make a real difference on the ground. Get in touch at [email protected] or visit:
www.greatyarmouthfirst.co.uk
Catherine Blaiklock was UKIP Economics Spokesman, founded The Brexit Party. She then stood for The English Democrats, and, as she says above, it now involved with Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain.
This article (Betrayal, Bombast and a Better Alternative: Why Restore Britain Leaves Reform in the Shade) was created and published by Free Speech Backlash and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Catherine Blaiklock
See Related Article Below
Restore or Reform?
There can only be one
RUSSELL DAVID
Answer: Reform.
I hope that doesn’t lose me too many subscribers. Please read on. I’m going to do nuance!
Why Reform? Several reasons. Not because they’re perfect (they’re not).
Recently, for instance, I was sent into a moderate whirlwind of despair by Nigel Farage announcing that they would keep the triple-lock on pensions. In one sense, this announcement is madness. In another, it isn’t.
It is mad because it is literally unaffordable in the long term. It will bankrupt the country. Because how could an ever larger amount of people (pensioners) getting a hike in income higher than the shrinking amount of people (workers) paying for it possibly be feasible over decades? It can’t be.
It isn’t mad in electoral terms. This is because most people are not good on economics; because people look after their own interests, and what’s rational for the individual is often not rational for the wider group; and because there are loads of pensioners, and pensioners tend to vote. As a strategy to get votes, maybe it’s reasonable. Then again, wouldn’t many pensioners vote Reform anyway, and doesn’t the party need to attract the support of younger voters? Wouldn’t more sensible pensioners realise that the triple lock is unsustainable? Maybe some would, maybe not enough of them.
Then there’s Reform’s policy on the similarly unaffordable not capping child support paid to families with more than two children. Actually, what is Reform’s current policy on this? I lose track. They seem to have been in favour of the cap initially, and then in favour of removing it, and then saying they would only pay out to British families. But the concept of a ‘British’ family means little now, following decades of unfettered immigration. So how would that work?
Reform’s partial retreat from Thatcherite economics – which, contrary to what the likes of Paul Embery or Rod Liddle say – is wrong. Never have we needed welfare reform, private enterprise, less regulation, tax cuts and incentives to build businesses more, along with trade unions and HR departments reined in.
Reform policies I like include deporting illegal migrants, leaving the ECHR, scrapping Indefinite Leave to Remain, scrapping Net Zero, cutting foreign aid, supporting farmers and slimming down the civil service.
When it comes to Restore, I agree with most of their policies too. I agree with most of what Rupert Lowe says. But here’s the thing: they won’t get any MPs at the next election. It’s a wasted vote. It will split the already split Right and let in a coalition of the most unhinged Leftist lunatics this country has ever seen.
Lowe strikes me as an egotist who had his nose put out of joint by Farage. The two were always unlikely to exist in the same party for long. Possibly Lowe sees Restore as Revenge.
As bright as they are, young bucks like Restore cheerleaders Charlie Downes and Harrison Pitt seem to be gripped by a Gen Z kind of thinking that says ‘if it’s not perfect, it’s not right’. They are too fussy. They have been brought up in a consumerist world where they can get pretty much anything they like in an instant. Perhaps they think that way about political parties too. Young Downes told Nick Dixon he’d never seen such a rush of support for a political party before. Yep. I can believe that.
It should be remembered that the 1979 Conservative Party manifesto only gave a hint of the radicalism that was pursued in the following decade. Also that many of Mrs Thatcher’s more radical policies were not enacted until after a second General Election victory, in 1983. Patience is a virtue. There is no way Reform would be able to say before the election everything they want to do. Don’t forget that the legacy media and the political class will do everything they can to stop them.
I’ve written before that Britain is probably beyond saving, but Reform would offer a sliver of a chance. To fetishize Restore, and imagine that they will win seats and not fragment the Right’s vote further, is the deluded view of the Online Right. To repeat: I support most of Restore’s policies – such as reversing mass immigration, rewarding the nation’s grafters, safeguarding election integrity, promoting a pro-British education system, and more – but to imagine they could be implemented without a supernova of civil resistance that even Reform won’t face, is for the birds.
One possible benefit to Reform of Restore’s existence is that many voters might regard Restore as too extreme and plump for Reform as the more ‘acceptable’ option. I personally don’t regard Restore as extreme but they are considered so by most mainstream opinion-formers. We are where we are. It’d be good if we still had sane, small-C conservative education, media and political establishments and for Restore to thus seem ‘normal’, but we don’t.
Restore should – but won’t – pack it in and be accommodated into Reform. I’d give the same advice to Advance, Reclaim, the SDP, Ukip, the Heritage Party and others. As Mrs Thatcher said, a party is like a bird, it needs two wings to fly. And it’s not as if the policies of the two parties are wildly different. They are slightly different in some respects.
We need the articulate, well-known and astute Farage in Downing Street. Maybe, just maybe, he could move the country Rightwards, as Orban did in Hungary. It’d be a start.
This article (Restore or Reform?) was created and published by Russell David and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply