953 – Transcript

Just Right Episode 953
Air Date: February 25, 2026

Clip (Monty Python’s Life of Brian – People’s Front of Judea scene)

Brian: Are you the Judean people’s front?

Reg: What? Judean people’s front. We’re the people’s front of Judea. Judean people’s front. Wankers.

Brian: Can I join your group?

Reg: No, piss off.

Brian: I didn’t want to sell this stuff. It’s only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.

Reg: Shhh, shhh, shhh, shhh. Are you sure?

Brian: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.

Reg: Listen, if you wanted to join the PFJ, you’d have to really hate the Romans.

Brian: I do.

Reg: Oh, yeah, how much?

Brian: A lot.

Reg: Right, you’re in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f***ing Judean people’s front. Yes, yes, yes. The Judean people’s front.

Group: Oh, yes, yes. And the people’s front of Judea. Splitters.

Reg: What? The people’s front of Judea. Splitters.

Loretta/Stan: We are the people’s front of Judea. Oh, I thought we were the popular front.

Reg: People’s front.

Francis: Whatever happened to the popular front?

Reg: He’s over there.

Group: Splitters!

Host: Bob Metz

Welcome, everyone. It is Wednesday, February 25th, 2026. I’m Bob Metz, and this is Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online. Join us for an hour of discussion that’s not right-wing. It’s just right.

It’s always those splitters who cause all the problems, don’t you know?

Well, here we go again. The people’s front of Britain is again becoming splintered, and there is a fracture in a split occurring on the right. So before warned, I am by no means particularly knowledgeable on the internal and domestic politics of Britain.

Outside of some of those horror stories we see posted on social media about the rising tide of violence and crimes of unspeakable sorts. So for me, today’s look at what appears to be the establishment of yet another new political party in Britain, Restore Britain, is less about the particulars of that event than it is about the very recognizable and disturbing patterns that I see forming around it. Patterns which, those on the right in particular, should learn to recognize and to heed. From their reactions to political labels and insults to the pattern of political expectations versus results, I’ve watched those on the right so often turn their own positive steps in the right direction into the proverbial one step forward, two steps back, towards the wrong direction, which we politically refer to as the left. These and other patterns are something I’ve come to understand thanks to my own very unique personal experience with the establishment of new political parties.

Something about which I shall elaborate and hopefully, usefully apply to what appears to be the establishment of Restore Britain, a new British political party. And it all begins right after our reminder that you can write us at feedback@justrightmedia.org. Hear us on WBCQ and on Channel 292 Shortwave. Follow and like us on your favorite podcast platform and visit us at justrightmedia.org where you can access all of our social media links, archive broadcasts, and the support button that makes it easy for you to support the show.

Because as always, your financial support is appreciated and is what makes this show possible. Now in my own electoral history, I have never won an election, unlike Robert Vaughan, who was elected as a school board trustee. But I have personally been a candidate at all three levels of government in Canada, federal, provincial, municipal, and have additionally been intimately, but not officially, involved with other newly established political parties, like Preston Manning’s federal reform party that we discussed last week, and more recently, like Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada. And I had in the past been a candidate myself for the federal Libertarian Party of Canada, and the provincial unparty, later to become what we now know as the Freedom Party of Ontario, and municipally I ran for the position of school trustee, essentially as an independent candidate, during the same time period that Robert Vaughan was elected as such. And I also had a personal inside view into the American Libertarian Party, particularly when I was the registrar and master of ceremonies for an event held at the University of Western Ontario, in London, Ontario, back in the year 2000. Sponsored by the International Society for Individual Liberty, ironically referred to as ISIL back then, I got to meet Libertarians, Conservatives, and Objectivists from around the world, including John Hospers, the Libertarian Party’s first American presidential candidate, who actually won an electoral seat in that party’s first election, something never to be repeated again.

And until his passing, John was a fan of this show. So the point I’m attempting to stress here is that I have had what I have to call a very unique and rare front row seat to the machinations and forces at play in the formation of new political parties. Parties generally identified as being on the right. So on turning our sights towards Britain, its parliamentary system has more in common with the parliamentary system in my own country of Canada, or even that of my province of Ontario, certainly more than it does with the American system called the Constitutional Republic. But at the heart of all so-called democracies exist common forces and principles at play in the eternal struggle to prevent any system where a majority of those who vote determine the outcome of the election from turning into effective mob rule, it would be handy to be aware of these forces at play, especially since when it comes to government, as you know, force is what is governed. So to kick off our discussion and perspective for today’s show, let us begin on this side of our upcoming bumper with none other than the founder of Restore Britain, Rupert Lowe, who in his February 13 X post explained why he was launching the new party. And on the return side of the bumper, two days later, Romanian TV reacts to the news with his own commentary somewhat sarcastically entitled, The UK Produces Another Far Right Party. Here we go.

Clip (Rupert Lowe announcement – February 13, 2026)

I have chosen to speak to you today from the farm because places like this represent what proper Britain is about.

Hard work, responsibility, effort, duty, stewardship. This is the England I know and this is the England that I love. On a farm, you don’t think in election cycles or headlines or polling. You think in seasons. You think in generations.

In what you leave behind to those who come after you. And that’s why here on the farm, I am now launching Restore Britain as a national political party. I’m now going to dedicate my life to finding, organizing, funding and providing hundreds of qualified candidates to present to the British people at the next general election. This process has already started with invitations being issued to patriots in aligned political parties, reform the Conservatives, the SDP, Advance and more. In local politics, we will work in partnership with localised political parties such as Great Yarmouth First that have the best interests of their residents at heart, combining our forces at the next general election. The men and women standing for Restore in that election will not be politicians.

I promise you that. They will not be failed ministers. They will not be tainted by failures of the past. They will be from business, from the military, from science, from medicine, from education, from industry, representing real communities up and down the country.

Every single one will be from well outside the existing political establishment and every single one will understand the difficult decisions that need to be taken. Because there are no easy fixes. I’m not going to tell you comforting lies about the condition of our country.

I have only ever been honest with the British people and I will be straight with you now. What is necessary will be incredibly painful. But for the first time in a very long time, voters will have a genuine alternative which is truthful with them about the scale of what now has to be done. The first priority is to control who comes to our country and more importantly who stays in our country. Restore Britain will not just stop mass immigration. We will reverse it. Every single illegal migrant will be securely detained and then deported.

The message will be unrelenting. If you are in this country without our permission, you will be removed. For the foreseeable future, far more people must leave Britain than arrive. If a foreign national is unable to speak English, lives in social housing, claims benefits, refuses to work, fails to integrate, commits crime or even actively hates our way of life and wishes to do us harm, then they must leave or be made to leave. Restore Britain will make our communities safe again for women and children.

That, I promise you. If that means millions go, then millions go. We’re constantly told that the economy needs vast swathes of low skilled migrants.

We know that’s simply not true. What we need is to get millions of healthy Brits back into work. A radical overhaul of how welfare is delivered. Protecting those in genuine need but not funding healthy shirkers to live off the back of hard working men and women. If you can work, you must work. It really is that simple. Restore Britain will be abundantly clear.

If you consistently refuse work, then you will lose your benefits. We will punish indolence and more importantly, we will reward success. We will provide vast economic incentives for men and women to start businesses, generate opportunities, build wealth and create self-sufficient families.

Standing here today on the farm, I know exactly what it means to deal with energy bills, labour shortages, regulation, unproductive paperwork, planning restrictions, tax and endless uncertainty. The state has definitively become the enemy of the people. Restore Britain will burn away suffocating taxes on work and enterprise. We will slash unnecessary regulation. We will dismantle bloated quangos and the overbearing HR culture we must crush parasitic Britain. We will restore long term stable logical policy so that businesses can plan and invest and grow again. But restore Britain is about much more than numbers on a spreadsheet.

It’s about who we are as a nation and who we are as a people. Britain is not just an economy. Britain is not just an idea. Britain is not just a passport. Britain is a nation. Britain is a people, our people. And restore Britain will never allow that to be erased.

We will celebrate our Christian heritage and the identity that built and shaped this country. Responsibility, restraint, forgiveness, duty and fairness. In short, a high trust society. That will mean defending our culture. That will mean resisting the relentless creep of radical Islam. That will mean banning the burqa, outlawing Sharia law, blocking cousin marriages and reimposing our Christian based rule of law. A restore Britain government would legislate to ensure that no halal or kosher slaughter on British soil. This is Britain and we will do things our way. This political party now exists for one reason. To restore Britain.

To make it a better, safer and more prosperous place for British men and women to raise their families. It will be difficult and it will be painful. But I assure you it is possible. I hope you will consider joining me on this journey and becoming a member of our party. It is our country. It is now our collective responsibility to act. Together we will restore Britain.

Thank you.

Clip (Romanian TV commentary – February 15, 2026)

The United Kingdom Before moving forward, I have to remind people how politics work in Europe. This includes the United Kingdom. Basically you have a party that suggests that immigration should be limited. That is their main focus.

Let’s reduce the number of migrants. Usually those parties, if left alone, turn out to be insanely popular. In some cases they may even get 40% of the vote.

In some cases let’s assume they get 49%. What happens is that every single other party, whether they are communists, monarchists, Christian democrats, pro-environmentalists, all of the other parties put aside all of their differences and all of their platforms and join together in order to govern with 51%. Then they form this thing called a cordon sanitaire in order to make sure that absolutely nobody negotiates with the far-right Nazi party. Far-right Nazi in Europe just means that you shouldn’t be okay with unlimited migration. The interesting thing is that there is one far-right Nazi party. In Germany you have the AFD. They are very popular. In France you have Le Pen.

It’s only one. Again, it drives the establishment insane. They do not want to allow a party that is against immigration to win even a single term. They would find this preposterous.

They would find it unthinkable. I don’t think there is a nation in Western Europe that has two anti-immigration parties. The left has many. The left has almost everything. The Lib Dems, the center-left, the center-right.

The communists literally, everyone is from migration. But they always isolate one party. What would happen if there are two parties?

This is what we are going to see because in the UK it seems that Rupert Loh is now creating another party. This is a politician that had a fallout with Nigel Farage. The analysis that Sarkarov Akkad gave is that he was becoming too popular and Nigel Farage didn’t like the popularity. In reality there can be a plethora of reasons. There may be certain conservatives that wanted to join Nigel Farage’s party and said we are joining but without that guy. There are a lot of deals that happen at the other table.

Some of them may even be economic in nature. Whatever the case may be, Rupert Loh was excluded from Nigel Farage’s party. He is making his own party right now. The interesting thing is that the previous Nigel Farage party is now becoming the conservative party. There are a lot of people from the conservatives, the Tories that are jumping ship and they are going into Nigel Farage’s party. They are now becoming a more public party. They are going in front of the cameras. They are invited by the televisions. While Rupert Loh is extremely popular on the internet.

Is this enough for him to win elections? I genuinely don’t know. But I do want to talk a little bit about the British system. First of all, I don’t think British people can vote their way out of the situation. It is not because democracy doesn’t work. In fact, it does work. It changes culture.

It moves the overtone with though. It allows for certain conversations to exist that didn’t exist in the past. This can influence the way people spend money. This can influence how many people leave the country. It has other impacts that may not necessarily be directly influencing democracy. But the reason that I am saying that British people can’t vote their way is because they have this thing called the civil service. The civil service are bureaucrats that are said there regardless of who wins elections. If you want to know how influential they are, you have to watch the TV show Yes Minister. That one absolutely describes the level of power and subversion that the civil service has. Most of the civil service are grifting heavily with left-wing grifts. They will resist any type of government that is right-wing.

You saw what happened to LISTSRUS. This is why I don’t think British people can vote their way out of it. What I think can happen and what can actually change things is the welfare system collapsing.

A lot of the migrants are coming there for freebies. How long until that happens? I don’t know. But there is another thing that I want to talk about which is Anglo-morality. This is why the British people have even gotten into the place where they are now. In the Anglo-sphere, people want their politicians to be moral. They want a moral decent person. And their standards are that of political correctness.

If you manage to control the media, all you have to do every single election is to prove that your opponent is immoral. So British people, if they find out that someone is unsavory, if they find out that someone is politically incorrect, they don’t vote for him. This is not just for British people. I saw it in Canada, I saw it in Australia, to some degree in the United States.

But the United States is a little bit more pragmatic. The idea is that Trump was on Jeffrey Epstein’s Island. Trump may have been on Jeffrey Epstein’s Island, but who was running against Trump? Kamala Harris. Would you want for years of Kamala Harris? She hasn’t been on Jeffrey Epstein’s Island. So the question is, would you vote someone that has been on Epstein’s Island but your personal life is not as bad as if Kamala Harris would have gone? Or would you vote for Kamala Harris just because the accusations of her going on the Jeffrey’s Island don’t exist?

Maybe she didn’t go. This is the mentality that people have in Eastern Europe. It’s not like it’s the president of a moral person. The mentality is like, can he do the job?

The moral argument is absolutely irrelevant. He’s a racist. He’s a bigot. He’s a misogynist. He beats his wife. He insults journalists. I don’t care.

I am voting him to protect me from other imbeciles that want to raise my taxes. I don’t think that the British are ready for this. The British, the moment they hear that a person has said something racist, the moment they hear that a person has said something incorrect or whatever, they distance themselves. Now, regarding the cop d’Ancola, is it a problem that this gentleman may split the vote? Isn’t the left splitting the vote? They have the Lib Dems and they have the Labour’s and they have all of their parties. Aren’t they splitting the vote? How can you actually have a political system without splitting the vote? If the left always has coalitions and the right only has one party, let the right have several parties. Maybe this election isn’t going to go well. But the next election at some point, maybe something clicks. So I think it’s a good idea. I think that Rupert going for elections is a good idea because it opens the door for new conversations, moves the overtone window. And we’ll see what happens.

Host: Bob Metz

Well, there you have it. Quite an ambitious plan from Rupert Lowe. And Lowe argues that proper Britain is about hard work, responsibility, effort, duty, stewardship. And while I applaud Lowe’s describing proper Britain in this way, hard work, responsibility, effort, duty, and stewardship are universal values that accrue to the political polarity of the right. And are not exactly distinctly British. And it certainly doesn’t describe the Britain of today. Today’s Britain may not be a proper Britain in Lowe’s eyes, but obviously he’s up against a political opposition that disagrees with him.

Which is why all the politics is necessary in the first place. Restorer Britain is about who we are as a nation and a people. We will celebrate our Christian heritage and build a high trust society, he says. Again, I especially applaud the restoration of what could be called a high trust society.

But once again, not something uniquely British. I remember Canada when it was a high trust society and I wouldn’t mind seeing a bit more of that restored while we’re at it. But I particularly like Lowe’s observation that we shouldn’t think in election cycles, but in seasons and generations. And that is exactly the reason for the necessity of political parties in the first place. As stable, fixed organizations capable of lasting beyond the latest electoral cycle and into future seasons and generations. And while the sentiment is great and Rupert Lowe’s commitment to his electoral objective is commendable, the real question is how is this objective of restoring Britain into a proper Britain to be done? And here’s where my own lack of insight into various British political parties might limit my field of vision.

But I noticed that Lowe said that he was launching Restore Britain with invitations being issued to patriots in aligned political parties. And my first thought was, what aligned political parties? If such parties already exist as separate entities, exactly what is their alignment based on?

And why yet another party? Lowe cited reform, conservatives, the SDP and advance among others. Now I wasn’t sure what SDP stood for, so when I went online to find out, what I discovered was it was something called the Social Democratic Party, which to me sounded about as left wing a party as you could get. But apparently the SDP just happens to disagree with a handful of leftist policies, including of course the immigration issue and the issue of digital ID.

And if I understand this correctly, it seems to me that this is no basis for alliances or to invite socialists into your midst as supporting members of your own party. And when you take into account his emphasis on reversing immigration populations and his comments about Islamism and banning Sharia law, etc. Clearly, driving the agenda and energy behind Restore Britain is the key issue of unlimited immigration and the problems that it has spawned. These are the key issues of division between one side and the other, as I think Lowe sees it.

Or at least as he thinks he sees it. For the first time, voters will have a genuine choice, he says. Our candidates will not be politicians from well outside the existing political establishments.

Well, I have two comments on that point. First, if the people he’s looking for will be from well outside the existing political establishments, then why is he recruiting what he calls patriots from other already established political parties? And secondly, no matter how far outside any existing political establishment one may come from, once registered as a political candidate in a political election representing a partisan political party, you become a politician, whether you like it or not, by definition.

But the ways that those on the right always want to engage in politics while denying that it is politics is really a phenomenon to behold. And for his part, Romanian TV made a couple of interesting observations that we’ll be pulling back into the conversation a bit later. But briefly they concerned what he called the Anglo-morality, where people want their politicians to be moral and by applying standards of political correctness.

And of course, there’s a whole issue of so-called splitting the vote. Which just happens to be the first issue raised in David Starkey’s February 20th interview with Rupert Lowe, and during which we get some deeper insight into Lowe’s perspectives and motives, which includes his setting up a rape gang inquiry in Britain, at which point the motivational plot certainly thickens.

Clip (David Starkey Talks with Rupert Lowe – February 20, 2026)

Hello and welcome to David Starkey Talks.

This evening I am delighted to welcome Rupert, delighted to have you. Can I begin with a slightly irreverent note? Did you see today’s spectator with the rather nice Douglas Murray article, which has you as one of its principal themes? What it was pointing out is the fact that we are now embarking, and I very firmly as you know, put myself on the right. We’re now embarking on exactly the same kind of fragmentation, which has so characterised the left for so long and has led of course to its impotence.

And that is the burden of the article. So what was your motive in turning restore from the movement into the political party? If I can answer your question in two parts. Firstly, the reason why did I morph from a movement to a party? I think the movements worked very well.

It’s united me after my political assassination by reform, which I still to this day can’t understand the logic for what they did, but they did it. So the answer is I’ve spent two weeks recently doing the rape gang inquiry, which as you know I crowdfunded a rape gang inquiry. I mean David, some of the things, the stories we heard are just almost unbelievable. You cannot believe that one human can do it to another. So I was reflecting on the fact that the entire political establishment had let down these vulnerable white English working class girls who were groomed at ages as young as 10, and then abused and exploited by gangs of criminals who I think were not only raping them, but also selling them for sex and using them as sort of drug carriers and various other things. So our state, David, has sat and watched this happening for 25 years and done nothing about it. Now to me it has nothing to do with race, it has nothing to do with religion, it’s got to do with what’s right and what’s wrong.

And a society that doesn’t protect its most vulnerable constituents is a failing society. So I sat for two weeks and I thought I’ve got a movement. I don’t have any political power and I intend to continue going forward holding these wretched civil servants to account.

But you asked me why did I do it? So, in short, we need 649 other people from outside the existing political establishment to go into Parliament to effectively overturn this failure which has beset Britain. So that’s the reason I decided to, if you like, change, restore from being a political movement into being a political party, because I think the British people need a choice of a fresh group of people to take control of Parliament. Again, one of the issues I argued with Nigel about, he voted for proportional representation, I didn’t and he criticised me for that. He said it was party policy to vote for proportional representation. I said, well, we don’t need it, we’ve got to win the next election. So, if we can get a completely clean slate of people who’ve contributed to their communities, who have expertise in various fields, whether it’s science, whether it’s cryptocurrency, whether it’s the digital revolution, whatever, people who can actually get into Parliament, repeal, repeal, repeal, which is you and I agree needs to be done.

And if you need to pass legislation, pass a minimal amount of legislation, but at the end of the day, release the British people from the manacles of a state which is oppressing them and has definitively become their enemy. So, that’s the reason I set up Restore as a party. And since I did that, I don’t think even I could have expected the response we’ve had and we’ve had voters coming forward who haven’t voted for 25, 30, 35 years, because they’ve been so disillusioned with our existing political establishment.

They don’t want what the state is imposing on them and they’re powerless to fight it. So, this is our last chance as Britain to fight for a system that is based and founded on common sense and a sense of public service. Now, when I went into it, I was hopeful that Nigel Fros shared my vision.

He didn’t share that. And therefore, when he kicked me out, I decided that I would effectively use a movement to then decide how I best created an opportunity for the British people. And I wasn’t entirely clear in my mind, but I was clear we needed a movement, we needed a mass movement of people who shared my vision. I don’t know how anyone can vote for Labour again. In other words, a terrible complicity of the Labour movement from top to bottom. They’re complicity, David, throughout the Labour Party and their willingness to put, if you like, their own political interests above what is right and what is wrong.

And in this case, there’s an awful lot wrong. They were manipulating and using something that I would have immediately banned, which is the postal vote. Unless somebody is serving in the forces or is terminally ill, I would not allow them to vote by postal vote. It’s one man or woman, one vote for me. There are plenty of polling booths. They go there. They put their cross in the booth.

So, we’re talking here now, aren’t we? The deployment of essentially the gang or clan structure of essentially Pakistani Muslim communities, Punjabi communities, effectively to take over the local machinery of the Labour Party, of local government, of local trade unions, even as we can see, police forces. But your awareness of this… David, if you put that very well, because one thing we’ve learned during our rate gang inquiry, and you will know this being better educated than me, is that what we’re facing at the moment is we’re facing the tribe versus the individual.

Now, our society is an individualist society, and a lot of the people who are coming here are basically tribal. A young party like ours, where people are doing a million and one things, we don’t have a huge amount of money. As you’ve quite rightly said, we’re not an established party, but we intend to win the election.

And I’ve got the enthusiasm of young people, if they make a few mistakes, the British people will make the judgment. We have put the most definitive document which I’ve sent to you. You’ve got a physical copy of it, which I posted to you, which I think is an excellent document. And nobody has questioned that document. No other political party has put out a definitive document like that on detaining and deporting the reasons why it’s difficult, the constitutional solutions, and then the practical solutions, such as making it a hostile environment and encouraging people to go home. I mean, we are spending far too much on people coming here illegally who don’t share our culture. You and I agree they come from tribal cultures with different customs, different beliefs, who probably put their own religion way above the interests of our country. So look, let’s just get real about all this stuff.

I’m quite happy to embrace immigration if it benefits the British people. So it’s got to be very limited and very targeted.

Host: Bob Metz

You’re listening to Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online. Now, I didn’t see the referred to spectator article by W.S. Murray, which apparently pointed out that the right is now embarking on exactly the same kind of fragmentation that has so characterized the left which has led to its impotence. Well, it seems to me that to suggest that the left has become impotent because of its internal fragmentation is perhaps the most detached from reality statement I’ve heard in a long time. And in particular, expresses a level of ignorance about what constitutes the left, collectivism, socialism, and all of the conditions to which the right is only now beginning to wake up to itself. Anyone with open eyes would recognize that the left is running the show.

It’s not impotent. But the real split being revealed here is not within the right in some broader philosophical or political context, but over the singular issue of illegal immigration and on which side of that issue you happen to be. In fact, when Rupert Lowe spoke about his small party not yet established and that he had created the most definitive document, I thought that would be a detailed document on the party’s broader principles and policies, etc. But it turned out to be a document on detaining and deporting illegal immigrants about making it a hostile environment for them. To which reforms Nigel Farage responded. Unless we are able to provide a proper democratic antidote to this, then I fear that we will see a rise of a really worrying, dangerous form of extreme right ethno-nationalism.

And I think we’re beginning over the last couple of weeks already to see some specimens of it. Nobody, nobody over the last quarter of a century has done more to defeat the genuine, intolerant, abhorrent, extreme far right than me. We did it with the British National Party and we’ll do it with whoever else follows. Wow, ethno-nationalism, intolerant, abhorrent, extreme, far right specimen. Just how close to anything right do you suppose that Nigel Farage sounds like after spewing an absurd list of vindictives like that?

By what fake adjective of right would he label himself? Given the overwhelming priority and impact that the issue of immigration has in Britain as it does elsewhere, it shouldn’t be surprising to see a party like Reform Britain make that its spotlight issue. But even as an isolated singular issue, allowing and promoting unlimited, unvetted immigration is a manifestation of the left, while restricting, prohibiting, and deporting illegals back to their countries of origin is doing what is right. As Low put it, it’s got to do with what’s right and what’s wrong. And in looking at the greater zeitgeist, he correctly observed what we’re facing at the moment is the tribe versus the individual.

And he made it clear that our society is an individualist society. Now here, once again, are David Starkey and Rupert Low in conversation about two, shall we say, rather uncomfortable issues. On this side of the bumper about the family feud on the right between Nigel Farage and Rupert Low and on the return side about what Low’s plans might be should restore Britain, lose the election.

Clip (David Starkey Talks with Rupert Lowe – continued)

Can we now just shift to the quarrel between yourself and Nigel Farage? Other things being equal, you clearly saw Reform as the vehicle that should have done, would have done, you hoped would have done, what Mr. Tor is aiming to do now.

That’s correct, isn’t it? Well, it wasn’t a quarrel, it was a political assassination. It was a one-sided political assassination. So Nigel is a narcissist. If you look at Nigel, he’s not, he doesn’t devolve power. And if you’re running a country or a company, you have to empower other people, David. You know, I thought Nigel shared what I wanted to achieve, but I, and the issue between us was, I challenged him, I said, where is the shadow cabinet? We’re going to win the election.

Where’s the actual long-term Reform game plan? And the answer is, I don’t think he had one. Of course, Nigel did offer a different explanation as to the party of the ways. He claimed that it was, in fact, a division over policy, didn’t he? And he said that the reason he got rid of you, and he said this publicly, was that you had supported the mass deportation of entire communities including those born in the United Kingdom.

And he went on to moralize this moves beyond reasonable, menace, decency and morality. He’s let his mask slip, because that’s not ostensibly the reason that they politically assassinated me. They assassinated me on the basis that I had threatened Zia Youssef. They made a palpably false, what Zia Youssef did, witness statement to the police, saying that I had threatened him in a meeting. There was absolutely no evidence of that, and I simply didn’t. And Lee Anderson made a false witness statement. They won’t give me copies of the witness statements, by the way. So, but I know from the questioning when I attended Hammersmith Police Station that Lee Anderson was suggesting I was going around Parliament saying I was a very good shot and I was going to shoot Zia Youssef.

Well frankly, palpable rubbish. And if I get my hands on those witness statements, I haven’t finished with it yet. It’s quite possible we will pursue criminal prosecutions against these people, including Nigel now, because Nigel, as admitted, it had nothing to do with those accusations. The other one was that I had early on set dementia. Another one was that there was bullying in my office. So Nigel let his mask slip. Nigel was accusing me of suing him.

I’ve never sued him. So look, he was talking complete rubbish, as he did about me saying I would deport whole communities of British passport holders. I’ve never said that. First of all, I have said those people arrive here legally. If the ECHR doesn’t allow us to detain and deport them, I would send them to a Scottish Ireland, give them a bowl of porridge and put them in a tent until they decided to go home and let the midges do the rest.

I did say that and I mean it. However, I would detain and I would deport. Anyone arriving illegally detain and deport. Anyone living here illegally detain and deport. Anyone in our foreign, in our, in our, in our, in our criminals in our prisons, who are foreign nationals, deport. What I have said is once we’ve done those things I’ve just outlined, we do need to start looking at those people who are on welfare, who’ve come here, who aren’t contributing to our society, who don’t speak English and who effectively are going to be a burden to the taxpayer for the foreseeable future. And we should encourage them to leave. And that is what is happening at the moment in Sweden, David. Where Sweden- And indeed in Denmark. In Denmark, in Sweden, in any country with a modicum of common sense, but I, I am intent on giving the British people an option to vote for something new.

I accept it’s not going to be easy, but I’ll tell you something. They’d rather have honest, decent people whose interests are aligned with theirs than they would, the cesspit that has now become Westminster. And I include in that not only the elected politicians, but also the civil service, particularly the permanent secretaries. And, and, and not only are too many of them, they don’t care about the British people. They’re oppressing them with too many regulations, too much red tape, too, too, too many laws, David, you and I agree on that. They need to be repealed. Agreed.

Agreed. We need to return power to the people and let them live their lives. We don’t want these bureaucratic numpties telling us how to live their lives.

Agreed. What you’re essentially making there, I think, is a moral statement. You are saying, bluntly, I should lead this movement rather than Farage because I am honourable and he is not. Is that what you’re saying?

I haven’t said that. I, I, I’m putting myself. But, but, sorry, what is, what else is the implication?

I mean, do you know what I’m saying? Having worked with Farage, do I think I’m more honest and more, if you like, more true than him? Yes.

Do I think I’ve got more experience than him of running businesses, looking after people in paternalistic ways within our family businesses and businesses that I’ve founded, built, and that I currently run on own? Yes. What was Nigel? He spent, he spent 25 years, David, in the European Parliament.

That’s quite a big chunk of your career. So he talks about his real life experience. He doesn’t have very much. I, I, to be frank, to be frank, I’m not interested in Nigel really. I don’t care about Nigel.

Nigel got rid of me and, and I am now doing what I think is right. All I want is a country that makes sense, a country that rewards hard work and rewards people who are honourable, people who actually contribute to society. And as a young man said to me the other day, he said to me, tell me, Mr. Lo, why is it that in Britain, it seems that everybody who tries their best and contributes gets punished and everyone who damages the fabric of our society is rewarded? And I said, I honestly don’t know, but it’s a very good question from somebody who is innocent and him looking at it in the way he does is, I think it’s very, it’s very powerful.

You talked boldly and bravely about winning. What if you don’t? What if you come halfway, quarter of the way? And the result is that in 2029, we have a split right and the appalling thought of a coalition government, maybe even headed by the dreadful stormer, maybe Angela Reiner, consisting of the Greens, the Lib Dems and the Rump of Labour.

If that turns out to be the result of your endeavors, how would you feel? Look, first of all, let me say I respect the electorate. It’s they’re the ones who ultimately make the decision.

Okay. So I don’t entirely agree with this point about splitting the right. You’re not going to split the right. What you’re going to do is you’re going to end up with a right that perhaps has a different cut of the pie, depending on which party the British people back in the majority. So whether they back us, whether they back reform, whether they back the Tories, whether they back advance, the fact of the matter is those are parties that are arguably going to deliver better for the country than the left. So all it all it means is the public are going to devote a certain percentage of their vote to those people who they support, right? And depending on if you like your slice of the right wing pie will depend on what form of coalition of the right you end up with is a possibility. If that right wing pie is smaller than the left wing pie, the left wing is going to format their coalition. So the die is cast either way. Whoever goes into that election with the biggest percentage of the public support will form the major part of a coalition.

But I’m not aiming for coalition. I actually think Britain needs a new broom. And if the public agree with me, and I’m excited by the number of people who come to us now and say, we haven’t voted for 30 years, you know, at least now we can see some form of logical offering which we can support. And I’m there if they want to support that, we offer that. We don’t offer a rehash Tory party. I think that you are underestimating the extent to which tactical voting will be more effective on the left than it is on the right.

There is already abundant evidence of this. Don’t you have a nightmare? Come on, please.

You must have occasional self-doubt. What if in 2029 you are leader of the opposition and Stammer or Angela Rayner or Ed Miliband is prime minister? How would you look back over these three years and the decisions you’ve taken? I don’t personally think Stammer, Rayner or any of the Labour Party are going to be anywhere near power in 29. And you look at what’s happening in Argentina where Javier Miliai has basically replaced 120 years of socialism which destroyed arguably the country with the greatest natural resources on earth, which in the 1900s and 1920s had one of the highest standard looms in the world.

You look at that, I don’t think there’s any danger. We don’t want these ridiculous taxes on people’s enterprise and endeavour. They should better keep the money they make, give it to their children, build their businesses long term, build their farms long term.

Honestly, there is no strategic thinking in this country. And I think, and you know your history better than me, but Britain, every now and again the British people turn. They’re very patient. You know, they don’t get the guillotine out by the French very quickly, but I think they’re in a very febrile mood now.

And when they turn, they turn. And I’m really excited by the support we’ve had. Look, if they don’t vote for it, I respect that. I am a Democrat.

I don’t really feel I want to be necessarily doing this. Somebody’s got to do it to give people, give the British people an alternative. Rob Rupert, I’m immensely grateful that you’ve taken so much time. You’ve spoken so clearly and so frankly. And I hope people listen and draw their conclusions. I’m, as I’ve said repeatedly, I am happy to help everybody on the right. Rupert, once again, thank you and good night.

Rupert Lowe: Thank you, David.

Host: Bob Metz

Now, you might have noticed that Rupert Lowe never did get around to answering the question, what if you lose? You could say that in this regard, Lowe certainly exhibited the key qualities of leadership, projecting a sense of confidence that he has the right answers and the potential to win the election. Another story I found from the spectator written by Annabelle Denham led with the headlines, there’s only one threat to ferrage on the right and it’s not Rupert Lowe.

It will take more than a flash in the pan to bring down reform. And meanwhile, in his own February 24th X post, Elon Musk tweeted that Restore Britain is the last and only hope. And he attached Rupert Lowe’s announcement that Restore Britain is well of 90,000 members and on track for 100,000 within two weeks of the party’s launch. My entire philosophy is based on common sense, Lowe told Carl Benjamin on Benjamin’s February 19th podcast. And of course, I’ve been down the common sense road before, as we discussed on last week’s show regarding past Ontario Premier Mike Harris’s common sense revolution, which never did produce anything of common sense out of his progressive conservative party. But, given that Restore Britain is just getting started between now and 2029, I would expect Restore Britain to develop some concrete policies and establish clearer principles over the coming years ahead. And that’s a process that in itself can keep the party in the public eye. So, and considering the direction that that might take, I have to tell you, I had perhaps one of the most pleasant surprises I’ve experienced on the political front in a long time.

In fact, on this point, I have to confess that the very last thing I ever expected to hear from the mouth of Rupert Lowe, again from Carl Benjamin’s show, was the following. Loads of young people come to me. I’m going to Asia. I’m going to real economies where people can see growth. They get rewarded for enterprise, rewarded for risk taking.

They get rewarded for making a contribution. Do we hear? In Ayn Rand terms, I think we’re nearly where John Gault was in Atlas Shrugged, which is one of my, as you know, my favorite, but we talked about this before. You talk to most people who have never heard of Ayn Rand.

Well, Ayn Rand, you know, the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, two of the best books you can read. I want Britain to be a nation of people. As we were when we annoyed Napoleon so much, I want them to be a nation of principles of people who have an interest in the country, a stake in the country. I don’t want statism. I hate it. I don’t want central planning. I don’t want fabianism. I don’t want Pavloism.

I want individualism. Well, that certainly explains why Nigel Farage sees Lowe as a nationalistic intolerant of horrid, extreme far right specimen, which, by the way, is a perfect example of what Romanian TV observed earlier. Remember what he called the Anglo-morality, where people want their politicians to be moral, applying standards of political correctness. David Starkey himself noted that what you’re effectively doing there is making a moral statement.

I should lead this movement rather than Farage because I am honorable and he is not. Is that what you’re saying? To which Lowe responded, do I think that I’m more honest and true than Farage?

Yes. And just for good measure, he let us know that Nigel is a narcissist. Well, if nothing else, this so-called split on the right has all the makings of great entertainment, which I suppose is always part of the political matrix. One thing that does nag at me a bit is this idea shared by Elon Musk that this next election is Britain’s last chance at salvation, which causes me to once again ask, what if you lose the election? Because if he believes that this is Britain’s last chance to turn around and if the 2029 election doesn’t give Restore Britain the majority it wants, then why would he even be thinking about continuing the party following such a lost election? Because when we lose, it seems to me, that a long-term plan for Restore Britain is essential to its survival.

Of course, he may already have thought all of that through, but has wisely decided that to talk in such terms today would weaken his current surge in popularity, a force necessary to propel his party into the position that he wants. And Lowe tells the story of the young man who asks, why is it that everyone who tries their best and contributes gets punished and those who damage society get rewarded, to which Lowe responded, I honestly don’t know, but that’s a good question. Well, it is a good question and it calls to mind the saying that a fine is a tax for doing bad. A tax is a fine for doing good. Now, would either the young man asking the question, or Rupert Lowe himself, consider that say, maybe income tax itself could be a source of that problem? Maybe income tax should be abolished.

Donald Trump’s talking about doing that in America. But as to why those who do damage and harm are rewarded, one must look to the ideology of the left. From Marxism to every one of its variants, destroying what exists is an intentional act that’s part of the plan.

And because the left is in control, that is why they don’t get fined for doing bad. To be sure, the next few years ahead on the political front in Britain will closely be watched around the world. Hopefully some valuable lessons will be learned.

And even though he challenged many of the assumptions and goals of Restore Britain, in concluding his own conversation with Rupert Lowe, David Starkey said, I’m happy to help everyone on the right. And that certainly reflects a sentiment and mission that we share on this show. But as I’ve learned over the years, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

And that’s a decision for the horse itself to make. So in keeping with that metaphor, let us once again lead those on the right to the waters of freedom and individualism when we all get together again next week, as we continue our journey in the right direction. And until then, be right, stay right, do right, act right, think right, and be right back here. We’ll see you then.

Clip (Yes Minister – Episode involving commissioner appointment, likely “The Bed of Nails” or similar)

Bernard: I’m in a bit of a quandary. Oh, can I help, Minister?

Minister (likely Jim Hacker): Well, I’ve been asked to be one of the new commissioners for the EEC in Brussels. Oh, very nice. Well, is it nice, Bernard?

You see, that’s the point. Look, Bernard, tell me, quite frankly, as Minister here, do you think I’ve done all right? Oh, yes, Minister, you’ve done all right. Yes, you see, Humphrey’s blocked me on so many issues he’s never really been on my side. And to be quite honest, I mean, all right, isn’t really good enough, is it?

Well, it’s all right. Have you heard anything on the grapevine? About you?

Well, nothing really, Minister, no. Only the British commissioner in Europe sent a telegram to the FCO and to the Cabinet Committee on Europe. The idea of you to be a commissioner came from Brussels, but it is, at the end of the day, a prime ministerial appointment. The Prime Minister has in fact discussed it extensively with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of the Cabinet and cleared the way for you to be sounded out on the subject. As it’s believed at number 10 and number 11 that you might well accept such an honour, a colleague of yours has been sounded out about becoming our Minister here at the DAA. I’m afraid that’s all I know. No more than that.