The Makerfield by-election delivered a predictable Labour victory for Andy Burnham, but the underlying numbers and dynamics offer sharper insights into the state of British politics than the headline result suggests. Labour’s vote returned to its expected baseline in this historically safe seat, yet the contest revealed a right that is fragmenting, evolving, and—crucially—beginning to hold itself to higher standards.
Reform UK continued its advance, gaining another +2.71%. In seats without a high-profile local figure like Burnham, that momentum could prove decisive. Some potential Reform voters appear to have held their noses and supported Labour specifically to install Burnham as a vehicle for ousting Keir Starmer, tempted by the prospect of a leadership challenge. This tactical voting underscores how personality and national positioning can still override local or ideological preference.
Restore Britain’s Solid Debut
Making its first parliamentary outing after Rupert Lowe converted the organisation from pressure group to party, Restore Britain secured a respectable 6.84% with candidate Rebecca Shepherd. This landed just one point below pre-election polling, despite some supporters drifting to Reform UK in the belief that Rob Kenyon might actually topple Labour. Expectations of double figures—or even 20%—were always unrealistic for such a new outfit. What matters is the foundation: a credible start that demonstrates potential without “costing” Reform a winnable seat.
Labour’s margin of victory comfortably exceeded the combined threat from smaller parties, putting that narrative to rest. The broader picture for other parties in Makerfield was bleak. The Conservatives, Greens, and Liberal Democrats had poor results, though none dire enough to trigger existential questions—such being beaten by the perennial barometer Count Binface, whose modest performance still outshone some minor options including the Libertarian Party.
Turnout rose by +6.35%, likely drawing in first-time Restore voters and re-energised former Labour supporters motivated by Burnham’s candidacy. Whether this reflects genuine enthusiasm or local factors is harder to disentangle. Makerfield is no national bellwether. Many voters backed Labour for historic reasons rather than ideological fervour.
Restore Britain cannot assume uniform national behaviour. The party must now focus on building organisation, refining messaging, and tempering expectations while preserving its commitment to open debate—especially on politically incorrect topics. Ground campaigning in the seat reinforced a vital lesson: social media savvy is no substitute for boots on the ground.
Inside Restore Britain: Early Growing Pains
Attending an inaugural local Restore Britain meeting revealed both promise and the inevitable teething problems of a new party. The local organiser opened with a sensible call for local issues—potholes, council waste—but conversation quickly veered into bigger ideological territory, including the Socialist Workers Party’s revolutionary aims to abolish the monarchy.
Attempts to discuss the monarchy’s left-leaning international alignments or cultural questions met with firm “don’t rock the boat” pushback. The evening dissolved into constituency-based discussions that felt chaotic, with little concrete strategy formation. Subsequent meetings have been more ordered.
For established smaller parties like the Populist Party, Rupert Lowe’s move creates a genuine conundrum. Many supporters overlap or hold dual sympathies. I joined when it was a pressure group; my membership converting to Restore without reference to me being a leader of a different party, albeit with similar aims.
Should they join Restore Britain immediately to shape it from within, adopt a wait-and-see approach, or maintain independence as a syncretic, localist force focused on anti-globalism? The question remains open, but timing and clarity on economics and foreign policy will be decisive.
Youth Appeal, Media Snubs, and Internal Criticism
Early polling offers intriguing signals: Restore Britain draws stronger support from 18–49 year olds, contrasting with Reform UK’s heavier reliance on over-50s. Only 6% of 18–24s back Reform and 4% Restore, suggesting both parties have work to do with the youngest cohort.
Media treatment has already raised eyebrows. Despite polling third initially, Rebecca Shepherd was not invited onto BBC Question Time. Restore Britain may choose to treat future snubs with an “empty chair” response, highlighting the broadcaster’s bias and the growing irrelevance of legacy formats that devote airtime to by-elections only certain voters can influence.
Online, some voices on the right—figures associated with Unity News Network and others—have begun criticising Lowe, nit-picking candidate selections and speculating about “civnat” infiltration. Yet Restore Britain remains more open to a range of nationalist perspectives than Reform UK, has adopted stronger positions on issues like animal welfare (banning both Halal and Kosher slaughter) and foreign policy, and shows willingness to listen.
Early days demand patience: perfect ideological purity may comfort the faithful but rarely wins power. Lowe appears to be navigating the narrow path between principle and electability.
Healthy Competition on the Right
Fears of “vote splitting” in Makerfield have been overstated. If Reform UK cannot compete when Labour fields a stronger leader like Burnham, that says more about Reform than about its rivals. A competitive Restore Britain forces everyone to improve—on policy, candidate quality, and organisation.
Rather than lamenting competition, Reform should welcome the pressure. In a free market they champion, electoral competition should be no different. The Burnham victory damages Starmer regardless. It may also compel Nigel Farage to engage seriously with Restore Britain on any future electoral pacts—on terms favourable to Lowe, given past treatment.
Ultimately, the right benefits from multiple challengers keeping each other sharp rather than relying on Labour’s weakness. Lazy politics ends when opponents are forced to raise their game.
Makerfield was neither triumph nor disaster. It was a revealing first test. Restore Britain has shown it can poll credibly without wrecking bigger players. The real work—professionalising, broadening appeal, and translating online energy into sustained local presence—now begins in earnest.
One final question. What is the “right”?
Free trade v protectionism. Zionism v non- or anti-Zionism. NATO v neutrality. Monopoly capitalism v distributist small-scale private enterprise. Civic nationalism v ethnonationalism. Personal autonomy v authoritarianism. Unionism v separatism. Centralisation v decentralisation.
All and any of these can be reasons why there are multiple parties. Something to ponder….
By Russell White. Russell is the leader of the Populist Party and guest writes for Third Way.
Discussion
No comments yet.