I have a cousin, soon to turn 30, who currently lives in a house-share with ten other people (yes, ten) in a northern city, hundreds of miles away from where he was born in London.

His parents, my aunt and her husband, met as students in the early 1980s, and when they graduated, were easily able to rent a flat in Islington, just off the iconic Upper Street, despite their youth and modest salaries.

Later on, when they had accrued a bit more money, they moved to more expansive premises in Ealing, just by the tube station, and had their first child in their mid-thirties. A second child followed a few years later, and the family remained resident in Ealing until the children had grown up and left for university.

In terms of advantageous starts in life, the children appeared to have had it all: born into a comfortable middle-class environment with two employed parents and a stable home life not disrupted by family breakdown, it was expected they would enjoy successful life trajectories comparable to their parents.

Yet on the cusp of turning 30, their oldest child, my cousin, has achieved none of the milestones his parents had at the same age. Not married or in a stable relationship, not a home owner or even able to rent his own place, and not on a stable career track. He graduated from university with a degree in the arts, as his parents had, but whilst their qualifications led them straight into stable graduate work, he has been eking out a living working in bars.

Most notably, he is not able to live in the city of his birth (to rent a single room in a shared house in London costs around £1,000 a month, plus bills), and the city where at least six previous generations of his family were born, because he has been completely priced out. So has his sister.

I relate this anecdote to underline that I empathise entirely with the idea of a 'broken Britain', and that various (wholly engineered) social and economic shifts have left many indigenous Britons facing a very raw deal, with many not able to enjoy even (what should be) the most basic birth right of being able to live in their own hometown.

(I face sort of the opposite problem - technically, I could live in my hometown, as it's one of the cheapest places to live in the country, but the factors that make it so cheap have driven every other member of my family, as well as all of my old friends, away, so there's nobody I know there left.)

When looking at the prospects - or the lack of them - for their children and other young family members, it's no wonder there is an increasing groundswell of frustration amongst many in the UK, culminating in the idea that we need to "take our country back" from the forces that have so decimated it: forces that are perceived to be squeezing out the native populace in favour of immigrants.

This is to say, I understand why the ruling classes needed to invent a 'Restore', which is currently at the forefront of a major socio-political battle as pertains to the northern, working-class constituency of Makerfield.

In case you don't spend a lot of time engaging in complex political analysis* (*arguing with bots on Twitter) and missed it, last week, Labour MP Josh Simons stood down from his seat in the traditional Labour heartland of Greater Manchester's Makerfield, in order to trigger a by-election in which current Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham, can stand as an MP.

As the Labour Party continues to further collapse under the catastrophic leadership of Keir Starmer, increasing support is building behind Burnham to take over as party leader - but he can't make a leadership bid unless and until he is an MP (which he was from 2001-2017, before giving it up to serve as mayor). Hence, this by-election has been arranged specifically in order to propel Burnham to power.

The only obstacle that stands in the way of Burnham - who is very popular locally - is Reform, who gained 31.8% of the Makerfield vote at 2024's General Election, coming in second, and only losing out to the Labour candidate by around 5,000 votes. Public mood towards Labour has soured considerably since then, as the recent local election results attest, so running a contest between Labour and Reform - even with a candidate as popular as Burnham - was always going to be a very close race, and one that Reform could conceivably have won...

Until 'Restore' entered the picture.

I've written about Restore before, Rupert Lowe's hard right new party, and what I believe its role in the political pantomime is: essentially, to hoover up Reform's less desirable "lunatic fringe" (the genuine far-right, those seriously invested in ethno-nationalism and remigration), therefore making Reform look far more moderate in comparison, and thus, far more electable.

In short, the press will stop calling Nigel Farage and Reform "far-right extremists" if they've got an even further right party like Restore to point fingers at instead.

Although vehicles like Restore create the illusion of great popularity on social media (and we will delve further into how they accomplish that shortly), the reality is that they are completely unelectable at a national level, as there simply isn't an appetite in this country for a far-right government, and Restore are polling at about 4% nationwide.

"But their odds are brilliant for Makerfield! They're dropping and dropping!"

This triumphant declaration is currently echoing all over Twitter, proliferated by Rupert Lowe himself.

Although this is true, it's important to ask why:

It's because ("allegedly"), rich Restore bigwigs are betting on themselves precisely in order to cause the odds to drop. It's a tried and tested political tactic to manipulate the electorate by creating the illusion that a fringe party is in with a chance and voting for them isn't a wasted vote.

If the odds weren't being manipulated in this way, then the electorate would see for themselves that Restore cannot win, and that a vote for them simply functions as a vote for Burnham. In essence, this election is less a by-election and more a referendum, where the question is: do you want Andy Burnham as Prime Minister? If yes, vote Labour. If no, vote Reform.

However, with Restore in the race, there is now another 'yes' option for Burnham, and that's a Restore vote.

There is absolutely no question whatsoever that Restore knows this, which is precisely why they are fielding a candidate. They're fielding one (and not a particularly credible one) precisely in order to hand the election to Burnham. It was always going to be exceptionally close, but without Restore in the race, Reform could have won it. With them, they very likely cannot.

If this happens - if Labour wins the seat by a slim margin and we end up with Andy Burnham in Downing Street - then both Reform and Restore voters alike will be furious with Rupert Lowe. He will be held as personally responsible for ensuring a Burnham premiership, when he could have prevented it by refraining from standing a candidate (as Advance's Ben Habib has).

The backlash this creates could be unsurvivable for such a fledgling, and disorganised new party, causing thousands of its supporters - many/most of whom are ex-Reform - to flood back to Reform in their hordes.

And that, I believe, is precisely the point - that Restore was only ever a containment vehicle to manage Reform's outliers, for whom the party was not right-wing enough, in order to eventually coax them back into the fold.

It is therefore entirely possible that, after the mess of Makerfield, Rupert Lowe will simply take his millions (Restore is estimated to have taken in roughly £2 million in membership fees) and disappear, perhaps blaming the "dementia" it keeps being rumoured he has, and that would provide a very handy "exit stage left" strategy.

Personally, I wouldn't vote for any of these sham parties, but Makerfield residents should know that, if they vote for Burnham, they're voting for Burnham, but if they vote for Restore, they're voting for Burnham as well.

(This, as an astute Tweeter pointed out, is why Advance's Ben Habib is backing Restore: it's because he knows Restore running almost certainly means a Burnham victory, and a Burnham victory means a new mayoral election as Burnham cannot serve as MP and mayor at the same time. Advance's Nick Buckley stood unsuccessfully in the mayor elections last time, and no doubt is very keen for another shot at it.)

The overlords desire a Reform supermajority at the next General Election, for reasons I have laid out in this article, and the best way of ensuring that is reuniting the ever more splintered right around a single party, and that is what I believe Restore is ultimately there to do. It is there to self-detonate, and therefore send its dismayed and betrayed supporters careering back to Reform, crowning them "the real deal all along, not like that bitter loser Lowe who couldn't put his ego aside for the good of the country".

After Makerfield, we can expect that Burnham, if and when he is installed as PM, will do some truly horrendous things, which will trigger an early General Election (2027, according to predictive programming vehicle, Years and Years), in which Reform, with no significant competition on the right (the Tories and Restore both having imploded), will win a landslide victory, making them a particularly powerful administration.

To achieve this resounding victory, they will cynically exploit all the social problems I outlined at the beginning of this piece, disproportionately blaming them on immigration (and yes, immigration is a problem, but it's not, for instance, why 90% of 30-year-olds were married in the 1950s compared to 20% today), whilst enacting some seriously sinister social changes. You may have seen those videos doing the rounds on Twitter, showing that, beyond immigration, many Reform voters not only have no idea what the party's other policies are, but are actively horrified by them when they find out.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting Labour are any better, or that any party that's considered 'electable' is, I'm merely outlining what I believe to be the current trajectory, and why and how the electorate is being manipulated to ensure a Reform supermajority at the next General Election.

Can we stop this? Probably not, but we can be aware of how and why it's happening, and to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

We could also take a leaf out of the crafty politicians' books and place a few bets... So, while we may not be able to afford to live in our capital city, with 11/2 odds for a 2027 General Election, we might almost be able to afford a pint there...

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (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 this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.