Will Lowe restore the UK?
THINKING COALITION
I suspect that Restore Britain’s promotional video was designed by a slick PR agency for people exactly like me: a middle-aged lover of the British countryside with a strong, but ultimately unrealistic, yearning to recreate the Britain of my youth. If I hadn’t fallen down the dissident rabbit hole, I would doubtless be inspired by Restore’s slick videos and forwarding them to colleagues: “Sir Rupert of the Lowe is riding in to save us!”
Whilst it is necessary to have hope, it is also necessary to retain some realism. We should by now be aware that politicians always give fantastic sales pitches and almost always betray their voters once in office. Since this is very much the rule and not the exception, why do we think that this time it’s different?
Rupert Lowe puts on a great show pushing the idea of country, family, individual liberty, limited government and Christian heritage … I mean, what’s not to like! However, even at this early stage in his parliamentary career there is already a huge mismatch between his stated beliefs and his actual voting record, and a big disconnect between his stated opposition to Net Zero and his investment activity.
Let’s start with some of the more amazing votes … sorry, make that non-votes.
One of the most amazing non-votes was his failure to show up to vote against Labour’s inheritance tax raid in December 2025. His whole schtick and promotional video is based around farmer Lowe, caring for the land, thinking in terms of seasons and passing the land on to future generations. Yet this intense level of commitment didn’t stretch to actually voting, so Lowe joined the ranks of Jeremy Corbyn, Dianne Abbott and others as a no show.
Another theme that Lowe plays in to is Britain’s Christian heritage. Again one would imagine that this commitment to Christianity and British values would get him to vote against the horrendous abortion to term legislation. I wrote about the highly dishonest amendment (New Clause 1, NC1) to the Crime and Policing Bill which enabled abortion to term. A process that was initiated by hard-left MP Tonia Antoniazzi and was voted upon on 17th June 2025 where (again) Rupert Lowe and Nigel Farage both failed to show up.
You might remember that many Christian-inspired lobby groups (including March for Life and Right to Life) expended enormous effort to try and defeat this amendment whilst Lowe and Farage simply didn’t show (Farage was hosting his show on GB News at the time of the vote).
Even more bizarrely, Lowe dishonestly claimed that he did oppose abortion to term in an exchange on X! He was (in my view) relying on a general lack of understanding of complex parliamentary procedure in order to get away with this lie. Lowe’s vote against was on 18th June 2025 where he opposed the third reading of the bill which covered all of the amendments at once. For all intents and purposes, the third reading is a formality and, in terms of stopping the bill, the vote here was irrelevant. His only chance to vote against NC1 took place on 17th June 2025 and he simply didn’t turn up.
In the replies on X, many people actually thanked Lowe for his service without understanding that they had been deceived. With this in mind, I invited him to delete his completely misleading “I did” tweet via a social media post which he ignored, and others also correctly pointed out that he did not vote on 17th June 2025.
Yet when Lowe does turn up to vote things fare little better. For instance, on 29th November 2025 he voted for the assisted dying bill in its second reading (along with Richard Tice and Lee Anderson), even though this legislation is not aligned with Christian principles and was vehemently opposed by most Christian-minded lobby groups. Somewhat confusingly, he voted against this legislation at its third reading, but again by that stage it was too late.
Investments
Although Rupert Lowe has referred to net zero as nonsense, he has invested seemingly considerable amounts of money in delivering the Net Zero agenda. One investment was in Kona Energy which I covered in this substack. Kona seek to provide batteries to stabilise the supply of electricity from erratic wind turbines thereby “delivering the zero carbon future.”
In addition Lowe has invested personally in Alto Energy, a company involved in the installation of heat pumps, which for the most part rely on government grants to incentivise people to move to heat pumps in line with net zero plans.
Is Rupert Lowe anti-establishment?
Rupert Lowe is a “player” with significant wealth and business connections. As an ex-Morgan Grenfell banker he would have been trained to be disarmingly charming whilst having a killer focus on profits. As well as chairing Southampton Football club, one of his many business ventures included Digme Fitness Limited where he was a co-director with none other than Rishi Sunak’s wife, Akshata Narayan Murty.
Conclusions
People need to understand that politicians are highly skilled in emotional manipulation: they understand what people want, which for the most part is to be allowed to get on with life with minimal interference in a safe and healthy environment. The oligarch-owned and generally Leftist political class has done everything possible to frustrate those simple desires through net zero madness, open borders, COVID oppression, intrusive electronic surveillance, high taxes, pointless wars and so many other harmful “policies.” Anyone who comes along and credibly promises to fix that will garner a huge amount of support from conservatives.
In addition, politics is described as “showbiz for ugly people”. Reform conspicuously waved Union flags, poured pints and wore Barbours to emphasise their Britishness. At the same time Reform UK’s leadership put Britain’s core values of individual liberty and democracy in the shredder when they embraced compulsory vaccination for care home workers in 2021 (no I haven’t moved on). Although Rupert Lowe was less involved in that particular initiative, it is irritating to see him invoking Christian roots whilst failing to oppose abortion to term and supporting, albeit partially, assisted suicide. For politicians flags, pints, Barbours, sheep and so forth are props that support the creation of a patriotic image, but when push comes to shove they have demonstrated that they have little respect for British values.
Rupert Lowe’s voting is completely at odds with the small “c” conservative and Christian image he professes to cherish.
Restore’s proposals feature deportations of illegal migrants, but rarely cover the more immediate threats of the digital gulag and the financial distress created by Britain’s involvement in pointless forever wars. On these threats he is largely silent and, worryingly, has received endorsements from Elon Musk who is playing a key role in the creation of the digital gulag. In fact Elon Musk has already introduced a social credit score indicator on X which is called the hidden_reputation_score, but more on that later. Likewise, Lowe has announced his and his party’s unconditional support for a certain Middle Eastern country, which means he would likely support UK involvement in future pointless regime-change wars.
As I set out in previous notes, I am not optimistic about the chances of achieving a true conservative government in Westminster owing to the fact that political success is largely driven by brand awareness. In turn, brand awareness requires a lot of access to mainstream media and a lot of funding, which means that parties are dependent on oligarchs. In turn, dependency on oligarchs means that politicians will almost exclusively pursue the interests of their oligarch donors at the expense of the citizenry. There are though smaller parties like the DUP who do a fantastic job of fighting for conservative values well below the radar screen and with a limited number of MPs.
So, whilst I don’t get any particular satisfaction from being a Scrooge-like figure mumbling Bah-Humbug whilst everyone on the right runs around excitedly on Restore Day, my sense is still that Lowe is not a reliable representative. I’ll continue to support Heritage and single-issue grassroots organisations (UKMFA, HART Group and others) rather than drinking Restore’s Kool-Aid.
If you appreciate the work that we are doing to expose the truth, as far as we can discern it, and dispel the endless lies and propaganda then it would be great if you could switch to a paid subscription, or at least a one-off donation via Buy-me-a-coffee. Substack seems to be squeezing dissidents, all of whom appear to have seen a significant decline in income from the end of October 2025 for no apparent reason. I want to be able to share research insights with readers whilst keeping my head above water. Funding options are available via Patreon (Patreon.com/ThinkingSlow) and Buy Me A Coffee (https://buymeacoffee.com/thinkingslow).
Many thanks
Alex
(thanks again to Mark Halliday Sutherland for inputs and edits).
Alex Kriel is by training a physicist and was one of the first people to highlight the flawed nature of the Imperial COVID model. He spent his career in consultancy and fund management including a long stint in Russia. His last job was in one of the world’s largest pension funds where he handled corporate governance issues and shareholder voting over a portfolio of 2,300 equity investments. He is a founder of the Thinking Coalition which comprises a group of citizens who are concerned about government overreach and are developing practical solutions to protect inalienable individual liberties (www.thinkingcoalition.org)
This article (Will Lowe restore the UK?) was created and published by Thinking Coalition and is republished here under “Fair Use”
See Related Article Below
Restore Britain: Promise Without Preparation
PETE NORTH
I initially greeted the arrival of Restore Britain with uncharacteristic enthusiasm. I do think the real centre of the right is somewhere between Reform and Homeland, and that Rupert Lowe is in the right ballpark on immigration in ways Reform is not. I cannot, though, offer my unequivocal support. What I don’t want to see is another shouty, obnoxious protest party. I’m still in the market for seriousness.
As yet, we can only really guess what the policy platform of Restore will be. We know that Lowe is committed to remigration in some form, but we can safely assume it goes with all the restorationist shtick, roughly in line with Habib’s Advance party.
What all of the populist right have in common is their propensity for daydreaming. One thing we can all agree on is that repairing Britain is going to take a minimum of a decade, and that some areas of policy will be slow going. Energy in particular will take ten years or more to sort out thanks to three decades of policy neglect.
As such, any party of the right needs to be thinking in terms of a ten year agenda, and that means not doing anything so disruptive and unpopular that they don’t get re-elected. This is why I have such reservations about leaving the ECHR.
One thing that is not widely understood is the extent to which the ECHR is embedded in our constitution, and leaving it also requires a number of other repeals. It will also require amendments to the devolution acts. There have been several reports looking at the legal feasibility of this but none of them take into account the political reaction of even attempting it.
I’m already working on the assumption that any meddling with the Northern Ireland settlement will be contested every which way, and when it comes to amending the equality act, you’ll activate the unions, NGOs and the civil service. This would all be politically challenging for a normal government, but restorationists want to do this with a single great repeal magic wand bill, which will be absolutely mauled in the House of Lords.
When it comes to these delusional agendas, it really helps to as “what could possibly go wrong?”. When you start asking that question, particularly about ECHR withdrawal, the answer is… quite a lot. The worst case scenario is that it collapses the GFA and the precipitates an exit from the Windsor Framework, imperilling the TCA itself. That reopens all of the toxic politics of both Northern Ireland and Brexit, when there isn’t even majority support for leaving the ECHR. Even if it’s done well, it’s no small undertaking.
This is where the right comes unstuck in that they believe they are the silent majority in Britain, but the country is still split roughly along the Brexit referendum lines. The more far-reaching the agenda, the more chances for sabotage and self-sabotage. Also bear in mind a lot of the other necessary but wildly unpopular policies the right wants to implement – not least abolishing minimum wage. This puts them on thin ice.
The prevailing attitude on the right when it comes to these complexities is much the same as in the days of Article 50 talks, where any technical dilemma is dismissed as problematising. This is and always has been a cavalier approach to detail. I also assume that without a clear idea of what replaces the systems we’re abolishing, the system ends up in gridlock. The right believes it can do everything all at once when in fact, it needs to look at what gives us the most bang for our bucks with the limited political capital we’ll have.
I doubt, though, that this kind of pragmatic thinking is happening anywhere. there are plans to win in 2029, and plans to do things on day one, but none of them are informed by the need to get re-elected in 2034. That then sets us up for the worst leftist government of all time.
A more measured approach would be to identify surgical amendments, and to do the groundwork of reforming the judiciary, the civil service, and the unions before even attempting anything radical, the the populist suicide squad will steam in and screw everything up so they’re a lame duck government within two years. As much as policy matters, so does the order of execution. If I was going to do something as daft as leaving the ECHR, I’d table it for the second term when there’s more political capital to spend. Sadly, though, the right is wedded to the idea of magic wands and absolutely power, thus their policymaking (insofar as it exists) simply isn’t informed by reality.
I regularly voice these thoughts on X and unsurprisingly, it doesn’t get much traction. Now that X is monetised there is a perverse incentive to post rabble-rousing slop and serious debate slips through the cracks. That’s ok though. I don’t really expect the average grunter to invest that deeply in policy – but I do demand it of political parties.
That’s where Restore Britain is singularly unimpressive. In the eight months Restore Britain has been in operation, it has only produced one policy paper written by Harrison Pitt’s on the matter of deportations. The paper is good as far as it goes (not least because a few of my points are adopted), though there are some problems with it which are non-trivial.
But then we get to the second problem. All parties and think tanks are guilty of this. They get their dogsbody juniors to compile PDFs which they then launch to great fanfare for a couple of days, and it’s retweeted thousands of times by people who didn’t really read it, then it’s allowed to sit and gather dust until everyone forgets about it.
As such, they get into the habit of producing policy for its own sake without realising the utility of it. Your research-based policy document should inform all of your subsequent comms and tweets, and your party literature should summarise it and promote it, and your top people should take the time to study it and commit it to memory. But they don’t so they end up contradicting their own policy and each other. We’ve watched Farage and Tice do this countless times.
If you have a decent policy document, it essentially serves as a database of reusable rhetoric and data which can be fed by supporters (whom you’ve trained) into daily blogs and Substack articles, so you can then build a reputation for knowing what you’re going to do and how. Policy does not exist for the consumption of the masses. It is there as a campaigning aid and a later instruction manual to civil servants once you reach power. That is what makes the difference between a serious party and a populist rabble.
It is also insurance against making promises you cannot keep, or committing to seemingly popular but foolish policy tropes. But that’s not what we’re seeing. We see parties going through the motions churning out lightweight crap, producing no subject experts and making themselves look like clowns. This was my main critique of Reform around the time I started this Substack, but it applies in equal measure to Restore.
Since the launch of Restore Britain, rather a lot of people have told me to shut up about this or at least reach out to Restore and “get on board” but I don’t think it would do any good. It’s very clear that zero preparation has gone in to this enterprise, and some very obvious lessons have not been heeded, and so Restore is on course to make all of the exact same errors as Reform. Everything’s being done on a whim, on the fly, with no thought to infrastructure or intellectual architecture, and there’s that all pervasive “it’ll do for now” mentality, where we’re promised substance later down the line which never materialises.
That its website is in more or less the same state as it was when they launched all those months months ago, tells me all I need to know about the level of attention to detail. The grooming “inquiry” was also instructive. It had a static webpage with no updates, no transcripts, no press releases, and what it produced was two weeks of meme fodder, and pending some private prosecutions that they could easily lose, it’s already buried.
All the important foundational administration is treated as an afterthought and everything is funnelled through Lowe’s personal X account. It looks like a cult of personality – and even though I like Pitt and Downes, they’re not going to be able to stay on top of the workload Lowe’s amateurism creates for them, especially when they’re also tending to their own public personas.
Ultimately, there are some things that needed attention before launch that probably can’t be salvaged now. It’s like launching a glider off a mountain with the intention to build the wings on the way down. Some of this could be remedied by merging with Advance in that Habib has at least built party infrastructure, but neither are especially hot on intellectual foundation or policy. Habib doesn’t really know what policy looks like, while Pitt is prone to Restorationist daydreaming.
As such, what you’re left with is an aggressive online pumping operation that generates lots of X revenue but doesn’t translate into votes. We’ve seen a dozen times how rapidly such operations can evaporate.
You also have to bear in mind that Lowe’s hang ‘em and flog ‘em boomerism has limited appeal even if the zoomerwaffen (a catastrophic liability) backs him. Every party has an inherent ceiling on appeal, so you have to be clear from the outset where you’re going to make the compromises to grow. If you don’t set that out early on, you eventually have to turn on your base the way Reform has, and you see splits opening up. I can already see the fault lines because this ain’t my first rodeo.
Pointing this out has not made me very popular over the weekend. As with the Kippers of yore, there are aggressive demands for conformity or silence. Meanwhile, to all those people saying I should pitch in and offer my services, I will say this…
The intellectual vacuum on the right is not a new thing. It was particularly acute in the run up to the 2024 general election, around the time I was going down to London on a regular basis to meet with various think tankers, known pundits and luminaries.
At two CPS gatherings I suggested to the dozen or so policy people around the table that they could each write a couple of thousand words in their lunchtimes, the culmination of which would amount to something quiet weighty. I offered to edit and compile it into a manifesto for NCF which Ben Habib could then adopt, either in full or in part. Peter Whittle said it was a good idea. Nobody in the business disputes the basic need for quality policy.
I made this offer on two occasions, with (if memory serves) messrs Pitt and Tomlinson in the room – and both have agreed with me that there is a policy gap on the right. It didn’t have to be me doing the work if they collectively didn’t think I was the right person (and there’s good reasons why I might not be), but it could have been done by *someone*. But it wasn’t. That material could have been reproduced for Restore at any time in the last nine months of its operation – or new material commissioned independently. But no.
As such, the excuse that it’s only been forty eight hours doesn’t really wash with me. This isn’t a sudden requirement. Policy was a part of Restore’s remit before it was a party – and the requirement existed long before. There’s plenty of brain power available to them, there’s been more than enough time, and I even went to the trouble of producing a model for them to pilfer if they wanted it. Still nadda.
In the meantime, Restore took it upon themselves to host a policy consultation (duplicating the work of GB PAC) which predictably produced nothing, and was never going to because ordinary members just regurgitate GB News talking points back to them, (which Restore should already know off by heart).
The job of policy people is to take those tropes and add substance to them. That work was not done. On both counts it was a pointless window dressing exercise, culminating in Habib publishing a sloppy PowerPoint presentation in place of policy.
Some have accused me of just being sour because I haven’t been invited into the fold but those people don’t know me at all. I don’t really want to be involved on that level not least because I’d have to go to London all the time which I seriously hate. A round trip to London wipes me out for days. l just want to see that the right is taking policy seriously, and thus far there is zero evidence that it is.
But to say that I haven’t attempted to engage is a flat out lie. I simply gave up flogging a dead horse (at considerable personal expense). Similarly, to say that all I do is criticise is another lie. Very few people have worked harder, for so little recognition or reward (and I don’t even care about that). I’m always having to say what people don’t want to hear while others lavish praise on the people who consistently fail to deliver. If you want another personality cult, fill your boots. Just don’t expect me applaud it.
This article (Restore Britain: Promise Without Preparation) was created and published by Pete North 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