Nigel Farage hit back at Rupert Lowe as Reform UK descended into civil war today.
He insisted Reform is not a “protest party” and swiped that Mr Lowe would not have had a “cat’s chance in hell” of becoming an MP without him.
Mr Farage’s comments come after the Great Yarmouth MP claimed Reform needs to “change from being a protest party led by the Messiah into being a properly structured party with a frontbench”.
But the Reform leader told TalkTV: “We are not a protest party in any way at all. That is utterly wrong, utterly, completely wrong.
“We are an entirely positive party. Come to any Reform event and the positivity, the energy…
“If I’ve got a following out there, that’s a good thing. If I hadn’t, we wouldn’t have won any seats in Parliament at all on July 4 last year.”
Reform leader Nigel Farage and MP Rupert Lowe (Image: GETTY)
Asked if this included Mr Lowe’s constituency, Mr Farage added: “There wouldn’t have been a cat’s chance in hell, come on, be honest about it.”
The Clacton MP went on: “We’re not a protest party and he’s on the front bench, so what’s he talking about?
“With only five people you can’t really have a shadow cabinet, can you?
“We’ve got a lot of development to do but we’re absolutely not a protest party.
“If you saw the level of development we’ve undergone in the last eight months. We’ve created a constitution for the party, we’ve changed the share ownership and structure of the party, we’ve set up 400 branches around the country.”
Asked why Mr Lowe had gone public with his remarks, Mr Farage said: “Perhaps he wants to be prime minister most people in politics do.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
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.
“Half the House of Commons think they should be prime minister. His comments are wrong, we are making gigantic strides.”
Pressed on if he had told Mr Lowe to “wind his neck in”, the Reform leader added: “There’s no point telling him what to do or what not to do. The fact is we are making huge strides.”
The row erupted after Mr Lowe, who has been touted by US tech billionaire Elon Musk as a possible successor, questioned Mr Farage’s leadership in an interview with the Daily Mail.
He said he would not be “by Nigel’s side at the next election” unless the insurgent party’s governance was overhauled.
He said: “We have to change from being a protest party led by the Messiah into being a properly structured party with a front bench, which we don’t have.
“We have to start behaving as if we are leading and not merely protesting.
“Nigel is a messianic figure who is at the core of everything but he has to learn to delegate, as not everything can go through one person.”
Nigel Farage Slaps Down Rupert Lowe as Reform Civil War Rages
Nigel Farage has reignited his bitter feud with Rupert Lowe as the struggle between Reform UK and its former MP continues to threaten the unity of Britain’s right-wing political movement. The confrontation has become more than a personal disagreement, exposing competing visions for the future of Reform and raising questions about whether Farage can maintain his party’s dominance among voters demanding tougher action on immigration and a fundamental change in British politics.
The dispute has followed both men beyond their original falling-out in 2025. Lowe has since established Restore Britain, a rival political movement seeking to attract voters who believe Reform does not go far enough. Farage, meanwhile, must defend his leadership while preventing the emergence of a competing organisation from weakening his political ambitions.
The latest exchanges underline the difficulty of putting their differences aside, even as the prospect of cooperation between the two movements has occasionally been raised.
For Reform, the danger is that an increasingly public feud could distract from its political programme. For Lowe, the challenge is to prove that his alternative can build lasting support rather than being defined primarily by its opposition to Farage.
Farage refuses to back down
The relationship between Farage and Lowe deteriorated dramatically in March 2025, when Lowe was suspended from Reform following allegations involving the treatment of two female staff members and a separate allegation that he had threatened the party’s chairman, Zia Yusuf.
Lowe denied the allegations and accused Reform’s leadership of conducting a politically motivated campaign against him. He argued that his criticism of Farage’s leadership had made him a target.
Farage rejected the suggestion that the suspension was simply an attempt to silence a critic. He argued that the party had a responsibility to investigate complaints and protect its employees.
An independent investigation commissioned by Reform subsequently found credible evidence supporting complaints of bullying or harassment involving two women who had worked for Lowe. Lowe rejected the report’s conclusions.
The separate allegation concerning an alleged threat against Yusuf was referred to the police. In May 2025, prosecutors decided that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against Lowe over the alleged threats and the accusations of serious bullying.
That decision was an important development, although it did not erase the findings of the party’s internal investigation. The different proceedings addressed distinct questions, and their conclusions should not be confused.
The dispute left the relationship between Farage and Lowe deeply damaged. Rather than resolving their differences privately, both men continued to challenge each other’s accounts of what had happened.
For Farage, the priority has been to defend the decision to remove Lowe from the party. For Lowe, the confrontation has provided a platform to question Reform’s leadership and promote his own political project.
The criticism that struck a nerve
One of the central disagreements concerned Lowe’s assessment of Farage’s leadership style.
Before his suspension, Lowe questioned whether Reform could move beyond being a protest movement and develop into a party capable of governing the country. He also suggested that Farage needed to surround himself with the right people if he wanted to translate his political popularity into effective leadership.
The remarks were particularly sensitive because Reform’s public identity has long been closely associated with Farage himself.
His political profile has helped the party attract supporters who feel disillusioned with Labour and the Conservatives. His ability to communicate directly with voters has also allowed Reform to dominate political conversations on issues such as immigration, national sovereignty and dissatisfaction with the established parties.
But a party built around a prominent leader faces a familiar organisational challenge: it must demonstrate that its structures, policies and decision-making processes can function effectively beyond the leader’s personal influence.
Lowe’s criticism raised that question at an awkward moment for Reform. Farage wanted to demonstrate that his party was ready to move from opposition into a position of national responsibility, while Lowe argued that its internal organisation required greater scrutiny.
Farage strongly rejected Lowe’s characterisation of Reform as merely a protest party. The disagreement subsequently became a public battle over authority, loyalty and the party’s future direction.
Restore Britain changes the equation
Lowe’s decision to establish Restore Britain has given the dispute a new political dimension.
While the original confrontation concerned his departure from Reform, the emergence of a rival organisation means the two men now compete for political influence and potentially overlapping groups of voters.
Restore Britain has sought to appeal to people who want a more uncompromising approach to immigration and a broader challenge to the political establishment. Lowe has presented the movement as an alternative for those dissatisfied with existing political leadership.
This creates a problem for Farage that cannot be resolved simply by criticising his former colleague.
If Restore Britain attracts voters who might otherwise support Reform, the competition could complicate Reform’s electoral strategy. Even a relatively small rival can matter in closely contested constituencies, particularly under Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system.
However, the extent of that effect depends on local circumstances, candidate quality, turnout and the distribution of support. The existence of a rival party does not automatically determine an election result.
Lowe must also overcome substantial obstacles. Establishing a national party requires funding, experienced organisers, credible candidates and a consistent policy programme. Public attention generated by a dispute with Farage may help introduce Restore Britain to voters, but attention alone does not guarantee sustained electoral support.
Both men therefore face a test of political organisation as well as personal leadership.
An offer of cooperation, followed by renewed tension
In August 2026, Lowe made an overture towards cooperation, suggesting that personal disagreements should be set aside for the wider political cause.
Farage initially responded cautiously but subsequently indicated that he was open to discussing possible cooperation between Reform UK and Restore Britain. The exchange briefly raised the prospect that the two movements might find common ground.
Yet the possibility of a rapprochement quickly encountered familiar difficulties.
Farage questioned Lowe’s approach and referred to their previous disagreements, while Lowe disputed aspects of Farage’s account of their communications. The public exchanges demonstrated how little trust remained between the former allies.
Any agreement would require the two sides to address difficult questions. Who would control the joint political strategy? How would candidates be selected? Would Restore Britain retain its separate identity? And what guarantees could each side offer that cooperation would not simply strengthen one leader at the expense of the other?
These are practical questions, not merely personal grievances.
A successful arrangement would need clearly defined objectives and an understanding of how both organisations could benefit. Without that foundation, a truce might simply delay another public confrontation.
The risk of splitting the vote
The rivalry matters because Reform and Restore Britain are seeking support from at least some of the same voters.
Both movements have placed immigration and national sovereignty near the centre of their political messages. Both also appeal to people who believe the established parties have failed to deliver the changes they want.
Where those voters divide their support between competing candidates, the consequences could be significant in individual constituencies.
That does not mean Lowe’s party will necessarily damage Reform everywhere. Some voters who support Restore Britain might otherwise abstain or choose a different party. Others could be attracted by its policies regardless of the dispute with Farage.
Nevertheless, Reform has a strategic reason to monitor the rival movement closely. Farage’s party has invested considerable effort in presenting itself as the principal alternative to the established parties. A competing organisation could make that claim harder to sustain in areas where their support overlaps.
For Lowe, the opportunity is to show that voters have a genuine alternative rather than simply a vehicle for expressing frustration with Farage.
The question will be whether Restore Britain can translate that appeal into an organisation capable of competing consistently at elections.
Reform’s internal credibility remains at stake
The dispute also raises wider questions about how Reform manages disagreements and maintains accountability.
A political party needs the ability to enforce standards of conduct and investigate complaints. It must also ensure that allegations are assessed fairly and that decisions are not determined solely by personal relationships or leadership rivalries.
Reform’s handling of the Lowe affair became controversial because the competing accounts involved questions of staff welfare, political authority and the treatment of internal dissent.
Lowe’s supporters argued that his criticism of the leadership was central to the dispute. Reform maintained that the complaints required investigation independently of political disagreements.
The available evidence does not justify treating every claim made by either side as established fact. The internal report, Lowe’s denials and the later prosecutorial decision each form part of the record, but they relate to different issues.
For Reform, the broader lesson is that transparent procedures and clear communication are essential if it wants voters to trust its claims about accountability.
For Lowe, the challenge is to demonstrate that Restore Britain would handle internal disputes in a credible and consistent manner of its own.
Neither side can expect supporters to overlook organisational weaknesses simply because they agree with its position on immigration or other policy questions.
Farage faces a test beyond the feud
Farage’s political challenge is to ensure that the dispute does not overshadow the issues on which Reform wants to be judged.
Voters will expect the party to explain its proposals on immigration, taxation, public services, housing and economic growth. They will also want to understand how those policies would be funded and implemented.
Reform must demonstrate that it can recruit capable candidates, manage local representatives and develop coherent plans for government. Those tasks become more difficult if senior figures are repeatedly drawn into public disputes.
At the same time, Farage cannot be expected to resolve every disagreement by making an accommodation with a former colleague. Cooperation is only worthwhile if the parties can agree on a workable programme and a fair division of responsibilities.
The same applies to Lowe. If Restore Britain is to establish itself as a durable political force, it will need to show that it can develop policies and build local support independently of the attention generated by its founder’s rivalry with Farage.
A struggle that could shape the political right
The confrontation between Farage and Lowe reflects a broader debate about the direction of Britain’s political right.
One question is whether voters who want stricter immigration controls and a challenge to the political establishment should unite behind a single party or support competing movements with different leadership styles and priorities.
Another is whether a political movement can maintain a strong central leader while developing institutions capable of handling disagreements and preparing for government.
Farage has built much of Reform’s appeal around his personal political identity. Lowe’s challenge has been to persuade voters that a different structure and approach could offer something more effective.
The future relationship between Reform and Restore Britain will depend on whether their leaders can find sufficient common ground to cooperate—or whether their differences prove too deep to bridge.
For now, the feud remains a reminder that political movements can face significant challenges from within even when they share many of the same broad objectives.
The battle is far from over
Nigel Farage’s latest confrontation with Rupert Lowe demonstrates how difficult it can be to move beyond a bitter political split.
Reform wants to present itself as a credible national alternative, while Restore Britain is seeking to establish a separate identity and attract voters who want a different approach. Both ambitions depend on organisational strength, public trust and the ability to turn political messages into practical proposals.
The prospect of cooperation remains possible, but it would require more than an exchange of conciliatory statements. The two sides would need to establish clear terms, resolve questions of leadership and agree on the purpose of working together.
Until that happens, their rivalry is likely to remain an important feature of the political debate on the right.
For Farage, the task is to ensure that internal conflict does not distract from Reform’s wider ambitions. For Lowe, it is to demonstrate that his alternative can stand on its own merits.
Ultimately, voters will judge both men not only on what they say about each other, but on the policies they offer, the organisations they build and the results they can deliver.