Reform are getting it from all sides now. Along with Labour surging away at the top of the polls and a Tory revival potentially knocking them into third, Reform are also having to try and deal with Restore Britain scuppering their chances on a local level.
Earlier this month, Reform lost two local by-elections to Labour in tight races. In both votes, Rupert Lowe’s Restore stood candidates, sparking anger from Reform supporters accusing the far-right party of splitting the vote.
Now, the same thing seems have happened again.
This week saw a council by-election take place in the Shepshed ward for Leicestershire County Council.
Back in May 2025, Reform had won the seat with 44.9% of the vote, comfortably ahead of the Conservatives in second and Labour a distant third.
But it seems a year and a half of Reform was all the people of Shepshed could stomach.
Labour candidate Jane Lennie has been elected the ward’s new councillor, with 1,163 votes – just 53 more than Reform’s Stuart Wood.
Crucially, Restore stood a candidate in this by-election, unlike in 2025. Their candidate finished fourth, but won 228 votes, more than four times Labour’s winning margin.
The result sparked an angry reaction from Wood.
He told the BBC: “I hope they are happy with themselves because now the people of Shepshed have a Labour councillor to represent them.
“It shows if you vote Restore, you get Labour.”
There’s been anger online as well from Reform figures, who also accused Restore of allowing Labour to win.
As far as Labour are concerned, they’ll be more than happy to watch Reform and Restore knock lumps out of each other on the hard-right.
And, given the bad blood between Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe, any sort of alliance or pact between the two parties feels a long way off.
Whilst the result in Shepshed means little for Labour, who now have just three councillors, it further weakens Reform’s position.
They now have 23 seats on the 55 seat council, as they attempt to run a minority administration in Leicestershire.
The Tories are the second biggest party with 15 seats, and the Lib Dems are third with 11.
Reform UK Faces Another By-Election Defeat as Restore Britain Divides the Vote
Reform UK has suffered another setback in a local council by-election after losing a closely contested seat to the Labour Party, renewing debate about the growing rivalry between Reform UK and Restore Britain. The result in Shepshed, Leicestershire, on 15 October 2026 has attracted considerable political attention because Restore Britain, a party led by former Reform MP Rupert Lowe, stood its own candidate and received a significant number of votes. Although Labour won the election by a relatively narrow margin, the outcome has raised questions about whether divisions among right-wing parties are affecting Reform UK’s electoral performance and its ambitions to expand its political influence across Britain.
The by-election took place in the Shepshed ward for Leicestershire County Council. The contest was particularly important because Reform UK had previously won the seat in May 2025, securing 44.9 per cent of the vote. At that time, the party finished comfortably ahead of the Conservatives, while Labour was considerably further behind. However, the latest result demonstrated a substantial change in the distribution of votes.
Labour candidate Jane Lennie won the by-election with 1,163 votes, defeating Reform UK’s candidate Stuart Wood, who received 1,110 votes. The difference between the two candidates was just 53 votes. Restore Britain’s candidate finished fourth with 228 votes, while the Conservatives secured third place with 23.1 per cent of the vote.
The final result was reported as follows:
- Labour: 32.8 per cent, an increase of 14.9 percentage points.
- Reform UK: 31.3 per cent, a decrease of 13.6 percentage points.
- Conservative Party: 23.1 per cent, a decrease of 2.4 percentage points.
- Restore Britain: 6.4 per cent.
- Liberal Democrats: 3.2 per cent.
- Green Party: 3.2 per cent.
These figures illustrate the changing political situation in Shepshed. Labour managed to increase its share of the vote considerably, while Reform experienced a significant decline compared with its previous performance. Restore Britain’s participation also attracted attention because its candidate received more than four times the number of votes separating Labour and Reform. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that there is no direct evidence that all Restore voters would otherwise have supported Reform.
The Shepshed result was not an isolated incident. Earlier in October, Reform UK had also lost two local by-elections in Claremont, Blackpool, and Amble, Northumberland. In both contests, Restore Britain entered candidates and secured a share of the vote while Labour emerged as the winner.
In Claremont, Labour received 458 votes, representing approximately 41 per cent of the total, while Reform secured 419 votes. Restore Britain obtained 79 votes, finishing behind the two leading parties. Labour therefore won the contest by only 39 votes.
A similar situation occurred in Amble, where Labour candidate Amy Spriggs received 38.8 per cent of the vote, compared with 33.5 per cent for Reform candidate Warren Ladyman. The Conservative candidate finished third with 21 per cent, while Restore Britain secured 6.7 per cent.
These results have strengthened the argument that competition between Reform UK and Restore Britain may be changing the electoral balance in some local communities. In constituencies where Labour and Reform are closely matched, even a relatively small number of votes for another party can become significant. However, the presence of Restore candidates does not automatically establish that Reform would have won without them. Voters have different political priorities, and those supporting Restore may not necessarily have transferred their votes to Reform.
The disagreement between the two political organisations reflects a wider conflict within Britain’s right-wing political landscape. Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, has attempted to establish itself as a major alternative to the traditional Conservative Party. Meanwhile, Restore Britain, established by Rupert Lowe after his departure from Reform UK, has sought to attract voters who want a different political direction.
The relationship between Farage and Lowe has become increasingly strained. Their disagreements have involved political strategy, party organisation and the question of whether cooperation between the two movements is possible. Reform has argued that Restore’s participation in elections can divide support among voters with broadly similar political positions. Restore, however, has rejected the idea that its supporters should automatically vote for Reform.
Rupert Lowe has defended his party’s independence, arguing that voters have the right to support whichever political organisation best represents their views. He has also criticised Reform for assuming that voters should simply follow its political leadership. His position reflects a fundamental principle of democratic competition: political parties must earn public support rather than expect it.
Reform representatives have expressed frustration following several narrow defeats. Stuart Wood, Reform’s unsuccessful candidate in Shepshed, criticised Restore’s decision to contest the election. He argued that its participation had helped Labour secure victory and suggested that voters supporting Restore should consider the consequences of dividing the vote.
Similar criticism has appeared among Reform supporters on social media. Some have argued that cooperation between right-wing parties would make it easier to challenge Labour and other political opponents in closely contested elections. Others believe that Reform should concentrate on strengthening its own appeal rather than blaming smaller parties for electoral setbacks.
The disagreement illustrates a difficult strategic question for Reform UK. Should it attempt to reach an agreement with Restore Britain, or should both organisations continue competing independently? Cooperation could potentially reduce competition between candidates in certain constituencies, but it would also require compromises over political leadership, policies and party identity. Furthermore, an agreement would not necessarily guarantee that supporters of either party would accept the arrangement.
For Labour, these developments have provided opportunities in several local contests. Winning the Shepshed seat is particularly notable because the party had previously been a distant third in the ward. Jane Lennie’s victory demonstrates that local election results can change considerably over relatively short periods.
Nevertheless, Labour should not interpret these results as proof of a nationwide political transformation. Local by-elections are influenced by several factors, including candidate recognition, campaign organisation, local issues and voter turnout. A result in one council ward cannot automatically predict the outcome of a general election or establish the level of national support for a political party.
The political implications also extend beyond the immediate rivalry between Reform and Restore. Leicestershire County Council has 55 seats, and Reform’s position in the authority has been affected by its recent electoral difficulties. Following the Shepshed result, Reform held 23 seats, compared with 15 for the Conservatives, 11 for the Liberal Democrats and three for Labour, alongside other representatives. The party therefore faced the challenge of maintaining its minority administration while dealing with changing political circumstances.
More broadly, the series of by-election results highlights the importance of the British electoral system. Under the first-past-the-post system, the candidate receiving the highest number of votes wins the seat, even without securing an absolute majority. This means that several parties competing in the same constituency can produce unexpected outcomes.
For example, in Shepshed, Labour won with 32.8 per cent of the vote, meaning that most participating voters supported other candidates. The result demonstrates that winning an election does not necessarily mean receiving support from the majority of voters. It also explains why political parties pay close attention to competition between candidates with overlapping political positions.
At the same time, Reform’s electoral performance should be examined in a broader context. The party has experienced both victories and defeats in local elections. On 30 October 2026, for example, Reform won council by-elections in Worksop East and Halton, demonstrating that its electoral position varies between communities. Therefore, the recent defeats should be understood as part of a changing and competitive political environment rather than evidence that the party has lost all its electoral influence.
Ultimately, Reform UK’s defeat in Shepshed represents another important development in the growing competition between Reform UK and Restore Britain. Labour’s victory, the decline in Reform’s vote share and Restore’s participation have highlighted the challenges facing parties attempting to attract similar groups of voters.
For Nigel Farage, the immediate challenge is to maintain party unity, strengthen local campaigning and respond to competition from Restore Britain. For Rupert Lowe, the challenge is to establish Restore as an independent political organisation capable of attracting sustained public support. Labour, meanwhile, will need to demonstrate that its local victories can be supported by effective representation and policies that address the concerns of residents.
The central lesson from these by-elections is that electoral success depends on more than political popularity or ideological similarities. Parties must understand local communities, develop credible policies and persuade voters that their candidates deserve support. The rivalry between Reform and Restore may continue to influence future contests, but the decisions ultimately belong to voters. In a democratic system, no party owns the votes of its supporters, and every election provides an opportunity for the public to express its political preferences.