Britain’s top pollster said that Restore Britain standing in the contest is “good news” for Labour and Mr Burnham – but could hurt Reform.

Professor Sir John Curtice told The Telegraph: “The place is on an absolute knife-edge, so far as what is sometimes thought as being the Right-wing bloc and the Left-wing bloc. Reform has managed, evidently, from looking at the transfer numbers, to squeeze the Tory vote.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch declared she would do “no deals” with Reform after calls for a pact between the two parties.

Mr Lowe, the MP for Great Yarmouth, has been a fierce critic of Reform after being expelled from the party last year in an acrimonious row.

It comes as Mr Burham, the Greater Manchester Mayor, is eyeing a return to Parliament in order to challenge Sir Keir Starmer‘s leadership in the wake of Labour’s local election drubbing earlier this month.

POLL: Should Restore Britain stand aside for Reform in Makerfield by-election?

The battle between Reform UK and Restore Britain in the Makerfield by-election turned into one of the most closely watched contests of Britain’s political year, with the presence of Rupert Lowe’s party raising a fundamental question about the consequences of splitting votes on the right.

Before polling day, the argument was straightforward. Reform UK and Restore Britain were competing for voters with overlapping concerns about immigration, taxation, government spending and the direction of British politics. Labour, meanwhile, was defending a seat that had been won comfortably at the 2024 general election.

The question posed by the headline — whether Restore Britain should stand aside for Reform — therefore became a question about electoral strategy rather than simply party policy.

Polling conducted during the campaign showed why the issue attracted so much attention.

A More in Common/UCL Policy Lab poll published on June 15 put Labour candidate Andy Burnham on 45 per cent, Reform UK’s Rob Kenyon on 40 per cent and Restore Britain’s Rebecca Shepherd on 8 per cent. The poll also found 13 per cent of likely voters were still undecided.

With Labour and Reform separated by only five percentage points, Restore’s support was large enough to affect the arithmetic of the contest.

But polling is not a prediction, and the eventual result demonstrated why.

Why Restore became central to the campaign

Restore Britain was created by Rupert Lowe after his break with Reform UK and Nigel Farage.

The two political projects competed for some of the same voters, particularly people attracted to tougher immigration policies and criticism of the established political parties.

That overlap made Makerfield unusual.

If Reform and Restore both attracted significant support, neither party could assume that all voters opposed to Labour would automatically consolidate behind Reform.

Reuters reported before the election that the right-wing vote could be divided between the two parties. At the time, polling showed Restore averaging around 7 to 8 per cent, while Labour and Reform were much closer together.

For Reform, that created an obvious strategic problem.

Even if the party remained the principal challenger to Labour, a smaller party taking several percentage points could potentially change the final result in a constituency where the leading candidates were relatively close.

That was the basis of Farage’s argument that voters should regard the contest as effectively a two-party race.

POLL: Should Restore Britain stand aside for Reform in Makerfield by-election?

The battle between Reform UK and Restore Britain in the Makerfield by-election turned into one of the most closely watched contests of Britain’s political year, with the presence of Rupert Lowe’s party raising a fundamental question about the consequences of splitting votes on the right.

Before polling day, the argument was straightforward. Reform UK and Restore Britain were competing for voters with overlapping concerns about immigration, taxation, government spending and the direction of British politics. Labour, meanwhile, was defending a seat that had been won comfortably at the 2024 general election.

The question posed by the headline — whether Restore Britain should stand aside for Reform — therefore became a question about electoral strategy rather than simply party policy.

Polling conducted during the campaign showed why the issue attracted so much attention.

A More in Common/UCL Policy Lab poll published on June 15 put Labour candidate Andy Burnham on 45 per cent, Reform UK’s Rob Kenyon on 40 per cent and Restore Britain’s Rebecca Shepherd on 8 per cent. The poll also found 13 per cent of likely voters were still undecided.

With Labour and Reform separated by only five percentage points, Restore’s support was large enough to affect the arithmetic of the contest.

But polling is not a prediction, and the eventual result demonstrated why.

Why Restore became central to the campaign

Restore Britain was created by Rupert Lowe after his break with Reform UK and Nigel Farage.

The two political projects competed for some of the same voters, particularly people attracted to tougher immigration policies and criticism of the established political parties.

That overlap made Makerfield unusual.

If Reform and Restore both attracted significant support, neither party could assume that all voters opposed to Labour would automatically consolidate behind Reform.

Reuters reported before the election that the right-wing vote could be divided between the two parties. At the time, polling showed Restore averaging around 7 to 8 per cent, while Labour and Reform were much closer together.

For Reform, that created an obvious strategic problem.

Even if the party remained the principal challenger to Labour, a smaller party taking several percentage points could potentially change the final result in a constituency where the leading candidates were relatively close.

That was the basis of Farage’s argument that voters should regard the contest as effectively a two-party race.

The numbers behind the argument

The strongest evidence came from constituency polling.

The UCL Policy Lab and More in Common survey found:

• Labour: 45 per cent
• Reform UK: 40 per cent
• Restore Britain: 8 per cent
• Green Party: 3 per cent
• Conservative Party: 2 per cent
• Liberal Democrats: 1 per cent

The survey was based on 515 adults in the constituency and was conducted between May 28 and June 12.

The figures immediately generated debate about tactical voting.

If all Restore voters had instead supported Reform, the combined Reform/Restore figure would theoretically have been 48 per cent.

But that calculation cannot establish what would actually have happened.

Some Restore supporters might have preferred Labour to Reform. Others might have stayed home rather than switch parties. Some might have supported another candidate.

Consequently, simply adding the two parties’ percentages does not produce a reliable alternative election result.

That distinction became particularly important after polling day.

The final result changed the story

The Makerfield by-election took place on June 18.

Andy Burnham won with 54.8 per cent of the vote.

Reform UK’s Rob Kenyon received 34.5 per cent, while Restore Britain’s Rebecca Shepherd received 6.8 per cent.

Together, Reform and Restore received 41.3 per cent — considerably less than Burnham’s total.

Burnham therefore won comfortably despite the division between Reform and Restore.

The result was also stronger for Labour than the published polling had suggested. None of the major constituency polls had placed Burnham above 50 per cent, yet he ultimately secured more than half of all votes cast.

That outcome is important when considering the original question.

Before polling day, there was a credible argument that Restore’s presence could damage Reform’s chances.

After polling day, however, the evidence showed that the size of the Reform-Restore split alone was not enough to explain the result.

Farage’s response

Farage acknowledged that the Reform result was disappointing.

In a statement following the election, he said Reform had expected to receive around 18,000 votes but secured just under 16,000.

He also argued that several thousand voters who normally would have supported Reform had instead backed Restore. Reform’s official account described the result as evidence that the two parties had divided voters who wanted Labour removed.

That interpretation is politically understandable, but it remains an interpretation rather than something that can be established simply from the result.

The ballot does not reveal how every Restore voter would have voted if Restore had not contested the election.

Some voters may have transferred to Reform.

Others may have chosen Labour, another party or not voted at all.

The counterfactual election therefore cannot be observed.

Restore’s case for standing

From Restore Britain’s perspective, standing aside would mean giving up the opportunity to offer voters an alternative political programme.

That is an important principle in a multi-party democracy.

A party does not necessarily exist merely to maximise the number of seats won by another party with broadly similar policies.

Lowe’s political project was established partly because he and Farage had significant disagreements.

Restore therefore had an independent reason to contest the election: to test whether there was an electorate for its own political agenda.

The Makerfield vote gave the party 6.8 per cent.

That was not enough to win the seat, but it represented a measurable level of support in the constituency.

Whether that level of support justified contesting the seat was ultimately a strategic decision for Restore’s leadership and members rather than something that can be answered objectively by the election result alone.

Reform’s case for consolidation

Reform’s argument was different.

The party positioned itself as the principal challenger to Labour and argued that voters who wanted a change of government should concentrate their votes behind the candidate most capable of defeating Labour.

Farage made this case repeatedly during the campaign.

He described the election as a two-horse race between Labour and Reform and warned that voting for Restore could help Burnham.

The pre-election polls provided some evidence supporting his concern.

The More in Common/UCL poll had Labour five points ahead of Reform, while Restore was on eight per cent. Another poll reported by The Independent put Burnham on 46 per cent, Kenyon on 41 per cent and Restore on approximately 7 per cent.

Yet the final result demonstrated the limits of such calculations.

Labour did not merely scrape past Reform.

Burnham secured 54.8 per cent, while the two right-wing parties combined received 41.3 per cent.

The bigger lesson from Makerfield

The most useful lesson may be that vote splitting is only one part of an election.

Campaign organisation, candidate popularity, turnout, local issues, national political sentiment and tactical voting can all affect the result.

Burnham had an unusually strong personal profile in the constituency.

He had served for more than a decade as mayor of Greater Manchester and had deep political connections across the region.

Reuters reported before polling day that his campaign emphasised the area’s post-industrial history and his argument for greater economic attention to northern England.

That local profile may have helped Labour outperform the polling.

The result also showed that Reform’s national popularity did not automatically translate into victory in a constituency where Labour had a strong candidate.

The Guardian subsequently described Makerfield as a warning for Reform, noting that the party had won only one of the five Westminster by-elections held since the 2024 general election at that point.

What does the poll question really mean?

The question of whether Restore should stand aside therefore has two different interpretations.

The first is mathematical.

If two parties compete for similar voters, splitting that support can affect which candidate finishes first under Britain’s first-past-the-post system.

The second is political.

A party that believes it represents a distinct constituency may regard contesting elections as essential even when doing so could make another party’s victory less likely.

Makerfield demonstrated the tension between those two principles.

The polling suggested that Restore could affect the contest. The final result showed that Labour nevertheless won decisively.

That means the election cannot establish that Restore standing aside would have changed the winner.

Nor can it establish that Reform would have defeated Labour if Restore had not contested the seat.

Those are hypothetical outcomes.

The continuing question for the right

The strategic dispute between Reform and Restore did not end with Makerfield.

Both parties are competing for political space on the right of British politics, and their relationship could influence contests in other constituencies.

The Times reported in September that polling suggested Restore could significantly reduce Reform’s projected parliamentary representation if it fielded candidates widely.

Such modelling should be treated as an illustration of possible electoral arithmetic rather than a guaranteed outcome.

The central issue is how voters respond when multiple parties offer overlapping positions.

Will voters consolidate behind one challenger?

Will they remain loyal to their preferred party even if another candidate has a stronger chance of finishing first?

Or will the presence of several parties reshape the political map altogether?

Makerfield provided one example, but not a universal answer.

A contest that exposed a deeper divide

The Makerfield by-election ultimately became more than a local contest.

It exposed a strategic divide between two parties competing for some of the same voters while pursuing separate political identities.

For Reform, the result strengthened the argument that fragmentation can be costly.

For Restore, the vote demonstrated that it could attract support independently of Reform.

For Labour, Burnham’s 54.8 per cent represented a stronger performance than the polls had anticipated.

The original question — “Should Restore Britain stand aside for Reform?” — therefore has no factual answer that can be established from the Makerfield result alone.

What the evidence does show is that Restore won 6.8 per cent, Reform won 34.5 per cent and Labour won 54.8 per cent.

The two parties challenging Labour together received 41.3 per cent.

Whether a different arrangement between Reform and Restore would have produced a different result is unknowable because that election never took place.

What Makerfield did demonstrate is that Britain’s increasingly fragmented party system makes traditional assumptions about two-party contests much less reliable.

And as Reform UK and Restore Britain continue competing for voters, the question of whether they should cooperate, compete or stand aside in particular constituencies is likely to remain a significant feature of Britain’s electoral debate.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.