Reform leader Nigel Farage and ousted MP Rupert Lowe (Image: GETTY)
Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe became embroiled in a furious war of words on social media as the Reform UK civil war deepened. The Reform leader hit out at the Great Yarmouth MP’s “monstrous” claim that the party tried to stop him speaking out on grooming gangs.
It comes after Mr Lowe lost the whip last week amid allegations over his conduct, which he denies. The Clacton MP wrote on X: “I have fought against the rape gangs for over a decade. For Rupert Lowe to say that I tried to prevent him talking about it is monstrous.”
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Mr Farage went on: “He told Lee Anderson he would ‘slit the throat of the Reform party’.
“Lowe is out to cause damage and should be ignored by our supporters.”
But Mr Lowe accused Mr Farage of being “desperate” in a reply to his tweet.
He added: “I said that Reform leadership was slitting its own throat by launching this horrific smear campaign against me, with zero credible evidence.
“I raised questions of Reform policy, communication and structure. The day after, you kicked me out. That’s your real motive.”
The row came after Mr Farage said there was no way back to Reform for Mr Lowe after his claim about grooming gangs.
Splits in the right-wing party came to a head on Friday when Reform said Mr Lowe had been reported to the police over alleged “threats of physical violence” to chairman Zia Yusuf.
It also claimed that two women working in the MP’s offices had made complaints about “workplace bullying” and “derogatory remarks”.
Mr Lowe has strenuously denied the claims, saying the allegations of bullying do not relate to him and were made by staff who themselves faced disciplinary action.
He also questioned the timing of the police report after Scotland Yard confirmed it was assessing a complaint the force received on Thursday about an alleged incident last December.
Tensions became apparent a day earlier when Mr Lowe questioned Mr Farage’s leadership in an outspoken interview.
Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe in Furious War of Words on X as Reform Meltdown Deepens
Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe have become embroiled in an increasingly bitter political battle, with their public hostility highlighting the growing divisions threatening to fracture Britain’s right. As the two men trade accusations and challenge each other’s credibility, the conflict is developing into a contest over who can claim to represent voters demanding a more radical alternative to the political establishment.
The row is about far more than personal animosity. Farage is attempting to establish Reform UK as a credible party of government, while Lowe is building Restore Britain as a rival movement aimed at voters who believe Reform has failed to go far enough. Their competing ambitions have created a potentially damaging split among people who might otherwise support the same broad political agenda.
Social media has become a central battleground in the dispute. Public statements and sharp exchanges allow both politicians to communicate directly with supporters, bypassing traditional political channels and ensuring that every disagreement can become a national talking point.
But while a furious exchange on X can generate headlines, it also raises an uncomfortable question for both men: are they strengthening their own political movements, or helping their opponents by turning the battle for Britain’s right into a deeply personal feud?
A rivalry that refuses to disappear
The relationship between Farage and Lowe has been deteriorating for some time.
Lowe was elected as a Reform MP in 2024, when the party made a breakthrough in Westminster. However, he was suspended by Reform in March 2025 amid allegations of bullying, which he denied. The dispute developed into a highly public confrontation, with Lowe accusing the party leadership of conducting a witch hunt and criticising what he regarded as its failure to tolerate internal dissent.
The disagreement eventually became more than an argument about party discipline. Lowe questioned Farage’s leadership and suggested that Reform risked remaining a protest movement rather than becoming a party capable of delivering meaningful change.
Farage, meanwhile, has challenged Lowe’s motives and questioned whether his rival’s political project is genuinely intended to improve Britain’s prospects or simply to settle old scores.
The launch of Restore Britain transformed that personal conflict into a direct electoral challenge.
Instead of merely criticising Reform from outside, Lowe now has a political organisation that could compete for activists, donors and votes. That gives his attacks a greater significance, particularly in constituencies where a divided right could struggle to defeat Labour or other established parties.
The feud has consequently become a test of political strength. Farage wants to demonstrate that Reform remains the dominant force challenging Westminster. Lowe wants to prove that dissatisfaction with Reform can be channelled into a new movement.
Neither man can easily ignore the other.
Why X has become the frontline
Social media offers politicians an immediate way to rally supporters, respond to criticism and frame political disputes on their own terms.
For Farage, direct communication with voters has long been an important part of his political approach. His public profile has helped Reform attract attention well beyond the party’s formal membership. He can use online platforms to reinforce his message, challenge opponents and present himself as the figure most capable of translating frustration into electoral success.
Lowe has similar incentives. As the leader of a newer political movement, he needs to establish recognition quickly and convince voters that Restore Britain deserves consideration alongside better-known parties.
A confrontation with Farage inevitably attracts attention because the Reform leader remains one of the most recognisable figures in British politics. Every public disagreement creates an opportunity for Lowe to question his former party’s direction and portray himself as an alternative.
However, the same strategy carries risks.
An argument that becomes dominated by personal accusations can distract from the policies each party claims to represent. Supporters may enjoy seeing their preferred politician land a verbal blow, but undecided voters are likely to ask more practical questions about economic policy, immigration, public services and leadership competence.
If the feud becomes the main story, both parties risk allowing their opponents to define the debate.
The political challenge is therefore not simply to win an argument online. It is to turn public attention into sustained support at the ballot box.
Farage faces a growing challenge from the right
For Farage, the emergence of Restore Britain comes at a sensitive moment.
Reform has benefited from widespread dissatisfaction with the traditional parties, particularly among voters who want tougher immigration controls and believe successive governments have failed to respond to their concerns. Yet the party has also faced scrutiny over its internal procedures, fundraising and readiness for government.
In October 2026, Reform acknowledged shortcomings in its handling of prospective donations following controversy surrounding discussions about possible foreign funding. The party maintained that it had not broken electoral law, while police investigations into potential breaches remained ongoing. The internal review criticised aspects of the party’s conduct and procedures.
Such controversies create an opening for rivals who argue that Reform needs stronger oversight and a more disciplined organisation.
Lowe can use these questions to challenge Farage’s claim that Reform is ready to take power. He can argue that voters should judge a political party not only by its promises but also by its internal standards and its ability to manage difficult situations.
Yet Farage retains substantial advantages. He has years of political experience, national recognition and an established campaigning network. Many voters who are frustrated with the Conservatives and Labour may still regard Reform as the most realistic vehicle for changing the direction of government.
That presents Lowe with a difficult task. He must persuade voters that Restore Britain is not merely a smaller version of Reform, but a movement capable of delivering something meaningfully different.
A public feud alone cannot establish that distinction.
Lowe’s gamble on a new political movement
Lowe’s decision to establish Restore Britain represents a significant gamble.
Launching a party is one thing; building a national organisation capable of contesting elections effectively is another. A new movement needs credible candidates, experienced campaigners, reliable funding and a clear programme that extends beyond the concerns of its most committed supporters.
It must also overcome the practical obstacles facing smaller parties in Britain’s electoral system. Under first-past-the-post, votes spread thinly across many constituencies can produce considerable publicity but few parliamentary seats.
That makes the relationship with Reform particularly complicated.
If Restore attracts voters who would otherwise support Farage, it could damage Reform’s prospects in marginal constituencies. But if it fails to build enough support to win seats itself, its presence could also help other parties by dividing the right-wing vote.
The consequences would depend on where Restore contests elections, how much support it attracts and which parties stand to benefit from a split.
Lowe’s supporters may see this as an unavoidable challenge to Reform’s dominance. Critics may argue that the new party risks weakening the very political cause it claims to advance.
Either way, the decision to challenge Farage directly means Restore will increasingly be judged by measurable electoral results rather than by the strength of its rhetoric.
The danger of dividing the right
The wider implications extend beyond the two men.
The Conservatives are also seeking to regain voters who have abandoned them, while Reform and Restore compete for support among people dissatisfied with the established political order. These overlapping ambitions create the possibility of a fragmented right in which several parties compete for similar voters.
That could have significant consequences in closely fought constituencies.
Even when parties share broad objectives, disagreements over leadership and strategy can prevent cooperation. A voter who wants lower taxes and tighter immigration controls may find the Conservatives too cautious, Reform too compromised or Restore too untested. The resulting choices could make it harder for any one party to assemble a winning coalition.
The Conservatives have already rejected the prospect of a pre-election pact with Reform, while Farage has left open the possibility of an agreement after a general election. This underlines how uncertain the future relationship between the right-wing parties remains.
Restore adds another complication. If Lowe’s party gains meaningful support, Farage may find it harder to present Reform as the obvious destination for every voter seeking a change of government.
But if the feud becomes more important than policy, all three parties could find themselves spending more time attacking one another than persuading the electorate.
For Labour and other opponents, that division could prove politically valuable.
Can either side emerge stronger?
The immediate temptation is to treat the row as a contest in which one politician must defeat the other. In reality, the outcome will be determined by whether either man can convert the confrontation into a broader political advantage.
Farage needs to show that Reform can withstand internal criticism, answer questions about its organisation and convince voters that it is prepared for the responsibilities of government. He cannot rely indefinitely on the argument that he is the only viable alternative to the established parties.
Lowe faces an equally demanding test. He must show that Restore Britain has a purpose beyond opposing Farage, and that it can build the organisational strength needed to turn political attention into electoral representation.
Both men will also need to consider whether their personal conflict is alienating voters who share their concerns but have little appetite for an endless dispute between political figures.
The coming electoral contests may provide some answers. A strong result for Restore would strengthen Lowe’s argument that Reform no longer has an exclusive claim on the right-wing protest vote. A convincing Reform performance would give Farage evidence that his party’s national recognition and established support remain more powerful than a rival’s criticism.
A poor result for either side could intensify the internal questions already surrounding its strategy.
A feud with consequences for British politics
The furious war of words between Farage and Lowe reflects a deeper struggle over the future of Britain’s right.
Both politicians are competing for voters who want political change, but they offer different answers to the question of how that change should be achieved. Farage is seeking to turn Reform into a governing force. Lowe is attempting to persuade voters that a new movement can offer a more convincing alternative.
Their dispute may attract attention on X, but the real contest will take place among voters deciding which party deserves their trust.
For Farage, the danger is that a bitter rivalry could expose weaknesses within Reform and undermine its claim to unity. For Lowe, it is that a campaign built around challenging Farage may struggle to demonstrate the independence, credibility and practical capability needed to stand on its own.
The argument may continue, with both sides determined to claim the moral and political high ground. Yet the ultimate verdict will not come from the sharpest post or the most dramatic accusation.
It will come from the electorate.
Until either man can demonstrate that his political movement offers a credible route from opposition to power, the feud risks becoming a damaging spectacle in which both sides win attention but neither secures the decisive advantage it seeks.