I think I might actually start the 'Repeat' party. At least it would be honest ('Repeat! Rehashing and resharing all the same risible rhetoric as everyone else...')

If I did this, I could also benefit from hoovering up a few votes from confused members of the electorate, who had mistaken Repeat for one of the other Re- parties, just as Rupert (or is that Repert?) Lowe is clearly hoping to do.

Commenting on the launch of Lowe's new 'Restore Britain' political party, the Canary said:

"We can’t ignore the fact that Lowe’s ‘Reform’ rival is going to be called ‘Restore’.

Does he not understand his main weakness is going to be voters literally just getting the names mixed up?"

Of course, Rupert understands the implications of his party's name very well, he is an extremely successful businessman, with plenty of money to bring in top political strategists, so he will be very well aware of this potential confusion. Choosing such a similar name to Reform is, therefore, entirely intentional, just as it was when Laurence Fox named his party 'Reclaim'.

At the time Fox launched the party, and for the very brief while it pretended to be a legitimate enterprise, everyone was constantly getting Reclaim and Reform confused, and so, of course, exactly the same will happen with Restore and Reform.

It's rather clever psychology, really, designed to amplify the niggling sense, possessed by many weary voters that, where it comes to political parties, they're all the same.

All serving the same masters. All eating from the same trough. All with (virtually) the same name.

So, if you get Restore when you wanted Reform, or vice versa, does it really matter? I mean, can you even be absolutely sure which one you voted for? It's very easy to check the wrong box on the form, and there's no way of confirming afterwards, after all.

Leading on from this, if Reform were to merge with Restore (the latter having already absorbed Ben Habib's Advance UK, nominally the major threat to Reform), would anyone really notice?

I have watched Rupert Lowe's rousing, call-to-arms launch video, holding forth in his wellies as he marches about his farm, and yes, it's all very impressive and he says all the right things (see if you can spot the mischievous 'Q' thrown in there too, for us conspiracy theorists).

However, the percentage of people who agree with what will be construed as Lowe's "hard right" rhetoric is not high enough to win a General Election. Serious political parties need to court the moderates, the middle-Englanders, and yes, the Muslims, in order to be in with a credible chance. Farage knows all this, which is why he does it. The reason he has put Muslims into key positions in his party is for one sole and simple reason: Muslims vote.

Vast swathes of the indigenous population do not. Around 40% of the electorate doesn't vote in a General Election (making the true number of non-voters far higher, as "the electorate" doesn't include the 8 million people not on the electoral roll).

Muslims do, and they tend to block vote. Their community leaders tell them who to vote for, and they obey. So, in heavily Muslim areas particularly, the aspiring candidate simply can't afford not to appeal to them.

For those who believe appealing to voters isn't relevant, as "it's all rigged anyway", well, it is rigged, but not by way of actively sabotaging votes that have already been cast. That's too risky and complicated, to say nothing of highly illegal, and, fundamentally, it just isn't necessary: those who seek to rule society understand human psychology very well, and they know they can manipulate most people to behave as they desire.

They can get the result they want at elections by manipulating people's minds, and subsequent behaviour, through the media (including social media). They don't need to resort to brute and unsophisticated tactics like ripping up votes.

To prove the veracity of this claim, look back to Covid: how did they gain national compliance with masks, tests, vaccines, and all the restrictions? Armed guards didn't go door to door and force you to comply. Rather, the government relied on the might of the media to control people's minds, and thus, their behaviour. It worked, and it's the same with voting.

The overlords have already decided who they want to win the next General Election, now they simply use the legacy media, and the major social media platforms, to ensure voter behaviour conforms with their choice. It's very easy for them to do this, and it always works. The media decides who wins the General Election, simply by virtue of who they give the most publicity to - and that publicity doesn't have to be positive.

If a party, or person, is being styled as "anti-establishment", then the establishment media obliges by criticising and attacking them, thereby appearing to bolster their anti-establishment credentials, and making them more appealing to their target base.

There's plenty of apparent media hostility to Nigel Farage, for example, because he is meant to look like a renegade outsider, not part of the evil establishment or its ubiquitous uni-party.

Which, of course, he is, and so, ultimately, is Rupert Lowe.

Rupert is a very charismatic and slick social media personality, but it doesn't seem he's much of a sincere politician (if that term in itself is not an inherent contradiction...).

Remember the row about the farmer's inheritance tax, which Rupert, a farmer himself, claimed to be especially indignant about? He wrote lots of long, impassioned tweets about it.

But tweeting is not his job. His job is to represent his constituents, which he does most importantly by voting on key issues on their behalf.

When it came to voting for or against the farmer's IHT in parliament, Mr Rupert Lowe MP abstained.

Every law that we have in this country only exists because of what 650 specific MPs (or however many MPs there were at the time) voted for. That's how laws are made, and so Mr Lowe's abstention from voting on an issue he claims on social media to care so passionately about, tells us a great deal about how much we might trust this character's true intentions, and whether his actions will ally with his words.

There is also the not-insignificant matter of Lowe once running a company with Akshata Murty - Rishi Sunak's ultra-wealthy wife, who, in 2022, was recorded as being "richer than the Queen". Her wealth is mainly derived from her shares in Infosys, her family's company, which is heavily invested in CBDCs, digital IDs, and AI credit scoring.

I've written about the Sunaks before, in particular Rishi, who is almost certainly an intelligence asset, intensively trained in the USA where he pretended to undertake an MBA. It was while he was there that he met his wife.

Not particularly encouraging business connections for the aspiring people's politician, Mr Lowe.

Lowe is also, like Rishi Sunak and Nigel Farage, ardently pro-Israel.

So, he's just another one in the club, even if he has had a few spats with fellow members, and he tells you this himself, by intentionally choosing a party name that is almost indistinguishable from the party that supposedly represents his arch rivals and avowed enemies.

Therefore, I think there are two plausible scenarios going forward:

One, Lowe's Restore gets such huge traction (it's already being promoted by such influential figures as Elon Musk and arch-Zionist Katie Hopkins) that Reform agrees to merge with the entity, as Advance UK already has, and Farage steps down to make way for Lowe as leader. Lowe then agrees to lead a more moderate party, to satisfy the existing Reform membership, hence Restore/Reform (probably keeping the Reform name, because of its appeal to a certain ethno-nationalist group) are then elected, and, once in government, behave just as Reform were always going to.

Or, scenario two:

Restore gaining traction is framed as a threat to Reform, so the establishment introduces one final, toppling crisis for Labour, in order to trigger an early General Election, and Reform sweeps to power before Restore gets the chance to build much momentum.

In either event, we still end up with a Reform government, and to see how that will pan out, check out the eerily revelatory Years and Years (which, amongst other things, accurately predicted the upcoming big Manchester by-election, as well as the current endless rain!).

In other words, I don't think the advent of Restore is going to, or is meant to, change anything. It's ultimately just more political theatre. The result of the next General Election still appears an inevitable, and foregone, conclusion.

Unless, perhaps, I launch my 'Repeat' party...

Thanks for reading! This website is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.