5 min read17 min

In an ageing society, the demands on public services will only grow, just as the pool of working-age taxpayers shrinks. If the state is to survive this demographic shift, it must do more with less.

That is the key offer of AI. From accelerating cancer diagnoses in the NHS to freeing up frontline police time and automating fraud detection, the benefits of AI are already making a difference.

But a narrative has emerged in Westminster that threatens to stall this progress. Seizing the benefits of this technology requires immense compute capacity, and the data centres that provide it require a connection to an already gridlocked electricity network. This has created a new dividing line in UK politics: do we prioritise data centres or renewable energy projects for a grid connection?

This is the wrong debate. Britain can, and must, pursue both.

New renewables will provide the clean, sovereign energy needed to kickstart the AI boom that will transform public services, while AI will help manage an increasingly complex modern grid, ease demand spikes and get shovels in the ground more quickly for new renewables. The net-zero transition and the tech revolution are not competing priorities, but two sides of the same coin.

A grid fit for the future

Britain’s energy architecture was designed for a long-gone era, built to manage a stable, predictable baseload of electricity from coal and gas. Today’s system is greener but vastly more complex. Wind and solar power fluctuate with the weather, creating mismatches between where power is generated and where it is needed.

Human operators, however skilled, cannot manage this complexity alone, and certainly not with the legacy technology currently at their disposal. Here, AI could be game-changing. Machine learning systems can predict demand hours in advance, forecast drops in renewable generation before they occur and identify transmission bottlenecks before they cause outages.

The net-zero transition and the tech revolution are not competing priorities, but two sides of the same coin

It can also help reduce demand spikes to ensure there is enough clean power to go around. By encouraging businesses and households to shift consumption away from peak periods, we can reduce our reliance on expensive, polluting gas-fired power stations that are switched on when energy from renewables is unable to meet demand. The result will be lower bills for consumers and a lower carbon footprint.

If we want an energy system that is both clean and reliable, we must modernise our infrastructure. By harnessing the benefits of technologies like AI, we can transform our grid from a relic of the nineteenth century into a system fit for the twenty-first.   

Unblocking the connections queue

The notorious 15-year connection delays plaguing the grid are not just a problem for data centres. They also threaten the transition to clean power.

To hit the government’s 2030 clean power targets, renewables need to come online at a pace Britain has consistently failed to manage. Right now, the connections queue is the single biggest obstacle – clogged up, in part, by speculative applications from ‘phantom’ projects that have no serious prospect of ever being built. Automated screening systems that rapidly audit the queue and flag unviable applications will free up space for genuinely shovel-ready infrastructure.

Furthermore, by harnessing digital twins – virtual replicas of physical grid infrastructure – network operators can stress-test the system under different scenarios before a single brick is laid. This would dramatically shorten planning timelines, reduce cost overruns and give investors the certainty they need to commit funding to the infrastructure Britain desperately needs.

The wider carbon dividend

Critics of AI tend to concentrate on what data centres consume. That is the wrong focus.

The International Energy Agency has pointed to AI as one of the most significant tools available for cutting emissions across heavy industry, transport and commercial buildings – sectors that account for far more global carbon than data centres themselves.

Across these areas, AI is already delivering measurable gains. Smart monitoring systems are finding thermal inefficiencies in manufacturing plants. AI-managed traffic systems are cutting congestion, reducing idle time and fuel waste. And in agriculture, AI tools are optimising fertiliser use and lowering associated emissions.

Taken together, these efficiency gains are likely to outweigh the electricity consumed by the data centres that enable them. Restricting compute capacity in the name of carbon reduction would therefore be a strategic mistake. It would limit the deployment of the most powerful decarbonisation tools available to the UK’s highest-emitting sectors, while doing little to address the underlying constraints of an outdated energy grid.

Future-proofing the net-zero transition

If Britain wants a clean energy system that works, it must embrace the technologies that make it possible. If we stick with the status quo, renewable energy projects will take longer to build, the grid will continue to fail, and already squeezed households will pay the price through higher energy bills.

The net-zero transition and the AI revolution are, at their core, the same project: building an economy powered by abundant, clean electricity and the smart systems capable of managing it. The countries that recognise that first and align their industrial strategies accordingly will reap the rewards. Will Britain be one of them?

What was once a broad consensus on the need for climate action has now shifted into a more complex and politicised debate. While legally binding targets remain in place, policymaking is increasingly shaped by debates over affordability and the financial burden placed on consumers, alongside issues of energy security, public support and economic competitiveness.

Government cannot deliver the transition alone. Progress depends on sustained collaboration between policymakers, industry, skills providers and society. Published ahead of Net Zero Week 2026, this supplement brings together policymakers and industry leaders as they aim to move the debate forward, by showing how net-zero can be achieved in a way that is both economically viable and politically deliverable.

From consumer flexibility and fairer electricity pricing to offshore wind, nuclear, hydrogen, clean ports, AI and climate technology, this supplement reflects both the scale of the challenge ahead and the breadth of solutions already taking shape.

Bill Esterson, Chair of the Energy and Net Zero Committee, makes the case that energy security and electrification are routes to growth and net-zero; Claire Coutinho, Shadow Energy Secretary, argues for a greater shift towards nuclear power, the removal of the carbon tax and continued North Sea development; Kim McGuinness, the Mayor of North East England, calls for a place-based approach that turns net-zero into economic opportunity; and Minister for Climate, Katie White OBE outlines how the government’s Carbon Budget 7 can support a cleaner, more secure and resilient future for Britain.

Together, these contributions offer ideas and highlight practical choices that will help shape Britain’s next chapter. Together, they make the case for an energy transition that is not only necessary, but achievable.

You can read the full report here.

5 min read3 min

Three dates tell the story of Britain’s climate journey: 2008, 2026 and 2040.

The first is 2008. I was in my early twenties, travelling the country for Friends of the Earth, helping campaign for what became the Climate Change Act. Most days were a mixture of early trains, community halls, church halls and endless cups of tea. We’d meet MPs in Westminster offices, organise public meetings and make the case that Britain needed to think beyond the next election cycle and start planning for the decades ahead.

What started as a job I thought I’d do for a year quickly became something much bigger. The campaign went on to become one of the most supported in Parliament’s history, securing backing from MPs across political parties and across the country.

Britain itself felt very different then. The best-known electric car on the road was probably the G-Wiz, a tiny vehicle with a range of less than 50 miles that looked more at home on a golf course than a motorway.¹ If you spotted solar panels, you tended to point them out. Britain had around 2.9GW of onshore wind capacity, just 3 per cent of our country’s total electricity capacity.² Coal generated around a third of our electricity.³ The idea that Britain could one day run predominantly on clean power rather than dirty fuels wasn’t yet a reality. It was just a vision of the future. 

The Climate Change Act helped turn that vision into a plan, which brings me to the second date: 2026. 

Fast forward nearly twenty years and I have the privilege of serving as Climate Minister, genuinely my dream job. This year, we’re setting Carbon Budget 7. I appreciate that “Carbon Budget 7” sounds less like something that could transform a country and more like the sort of document capable of curing insomnia. But it may be one of the most important documents most people will never read. At its heart, Carbon Budget 7 is Britain’s plan for the years 2038 to 2042. It asks a simple question: if we know where we want to get to, what do we need to build now to make it happen?

If you want proof that long-term planning works, you only need to look around Britain today. 

As I said, when the Climate Change Act was passed, Britain had around 2.9GW of onshore wind. Today, we have over 15GW.⁴ What was once a handful of turbines has become a cornerstone of our energy system.  

In 2008, Britain had just 22MW of solar power installed.⁵ Today, there is over 21GW of capacity.⁶ Solar has gone from something you occasionally spotted on a roof to something woven into everyday life.  

And that G-Wiz? Today, there are more than two million zero-emission vehicles on Britain’s roads.⁷ Electric cars have gone from novelty to normal in less than two decades. 

When people talk about climate action, they often picture targets, graphs and technical reports. What I see is one of the biggest upgrades to Britain’s infrastructure and economy in modern history. 

Which brings me to the third date: 2040. For some people, 2040 sounds a long way off. But the child starting primary school this September will be in their early twenties. The decisions we make over the next few years will continue to shape their lives.

That is why I often say I want to be a minister for the future. Politics spends too much time talking about the next news cycle. My job is to think about the next generation. 

If you want proof that long-term planning works, you only need to look around Britain today

Advertisement

By 2040, Britain could look fundamentally different. For example, under the Climate Change Committee’s balanced pathway, offshore wind capacity could reach 88GW and solar power 82GW.⁸ Around half of homes could be heated by heat pumps instead of gas boilers, protecting billpayers, reducing pollution and reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels.

The exciting thing is what that means in practice. Cars that charge while you sleep. Homes heated without burning gas. Cleaner air for our children. Energy generated here in Britain rather than bought from abroad. And when global crises hit, families less exposed to the price shocks that have caused so much hardship in recent years. The prize is a country that is cleaner, more secure and more resilient. 

The real significance of Carbon Budget 7 is not the number in its title. It is that it asks the same question campaigners, MPs and our communities were asking back in 2008: what kind of future do we want to build?

References

1. Top Gear; Fail of the century #9: Reva G-Wiz. https://www.topgear.com/car-news/fail-century/fail-century-9-reva-g-wiz
2. Parliament UK; The Economics of Renewable Energy – Economic Affairs Committee. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19506.htm
3. GOV.UK; Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES): renewable sources of energy. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/renewable-sources-of-energy-chapter-6-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes
4. RenewableUK. https://www.renewableuk.com/our-work/onshore-wind/
5. ScienceDirect; Towards improved solar energy justice: Exploring the complex inequities of household adoption of photovoltaic panels. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421522000933
6. Solar Power portal; UK surpassed two million solar installations in March, government figures show. https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/solar-installations/uk-surpassed-2-million-solar-installations-in-march-government-figures-show
7. Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit; 2 million EVs registered across UK: comment. https://eciu.net/media/press-releases/2-million-evs-registered-across-uk-comment
8. Climate Change Committee; The Seventh Carbon Budget. https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-seventh-carbon-budget/

It’s ironic to think, at the end of Keir Starmer’s premiership, that his problems began almost at the start of it.

One of my first editorials for ConservativeHome on the man who became known in our office as ‘the adenoidal overlord’ was; that in politics, it’s not the suits, the flat, the glasses, the tickets. It’s not the U-turns – forced largely by the Conservative opposition, or his own backbenchers. It’s not the Chagos Islands, the collapsed China spy trial or the limp cave in on their spy-hub embassy, it’s not Mandelson, a rack of ministers resigning, or the missing-in-action Defence Investment Plan.

I mean, all of these were the fuel he kept throwing on his own political pyre, but the really toxic thing that inhabited all of these moments and kept it burning was the hypocrisy.

The four years of camping on the nearest bit of moral high ground he could find, to claim the Conservatives were just bad people, who once he replaced all would be well. The failure to spot that if you offer change you meant change for the better not what you delivered, which is worse. The self awarded ‘country before party’ badge tarnished by hurling people under buses because in the end it was his job first.

The surviving Cabinet, those ‘un-resigned’ but now resigned to his fate, and possibly their own, gushed about his ‘legacy’ online, and cheered in the House of Commons yesterday, whilst they simultaneously horse-traded via Louise Hague, one of the first who had to resign, for a job with the MP who would be PM, or just beg via mobile to cling to the one they’ve currently got.

And Kemi Badenoch knew people don’t like watching a man being kicked when he’s down. So she didn’t.

Instead she went for those who cheered him to the rafters but had – and I’m sorry it is a well known and widely accepted rhetorical leitmotiv for betrayal not really a trigger to public violence – ‘stabbed him in the back’.

Tulip Saddiq the anti-corruption minister who had to resign after she and her auntie were accused of corruption, took to her feet after PMQs and railed how language matters. How it can extend to actions outside parliament where women particularly can feel threatened. I would never dismiss such concerns, nobody should feel unsafe, but it was odd coming from a woman, who threatened a pregnant producer who worked for Channel 4 outside Parliament, for asking her difficult questions about her aunt.

Politics is a brutal game, everyone knows that, but hard words from a despatch box are nothing to watching Labour MPs and front benchers rallying for their leader having just told him it was time to pack it in because he was so unpopular.

It was hypocrisy to cry foul over some of Kemi Badenoch’s barbs –  she is known for not sugarcoating things, calling Bridget Phillipson ‘incompetent’ and ‘a spiteful class warrior’ – and then claiming this was some form of ‘new low’

New low?

What? Compared to Angela Rayner branding the entire Tory Party ‘scum’? David Lammy describing the ERG group of Tory Brexiteers ‘Nazis’? John McDonnell asking why Esther McVey shouldn’t be ‘lynched’? Bridget Phillipson branding Nick Timothy a ‘racist’? Ed Davey calling Boris Johnson a ‘traitor’?

What is low behaviour is the collective amnesia of Labour MPs, clearly corralled into shaming Kemi Badenoch over PMQs. It didn’t just extend to the mask-slipping revelation that it would seem because they are the ‘good guys’ it’s ok if you insult ‘the bad guy’ Tories but is outrageous the other way around. Worse they even ignored what Badenoch had actually said.

Apparently according to Keir, who like his Prime Ministerial predecessor Rishi Sunak, seems to have come out of his shell since he chucked it all in, it was because Badenoch had had a go at Phillipson’s working class story. It is a social mobility success story, all power to her for getting where she did, growing up as it happens, under the Tories.

However nobody mentioned her roots. Just Labour. And as Kemi said later online:

‘”I grew up on a council estate” is not an excuse for failure’

Quite apart from the fact, lots of Tories aren’t from a posh background, and plenty of Labour politicians have used independent schools to educate their kids, their howl of indignation ignored the fact – very deliberately – that a poll has come out where 0 per cent of NEU teachers said Philipson was doing a good job and 72 per cent were negative about her performance, and that many a parent of children in independent schools think her VAT on fees, was class-war inspired spite.

I’ve met scores of parents who’ve had to move out of schools that they paid for -whilst rightly paying tax to educate other kids- who are neither posh nor that well off but made a free choice. They could have had cars, or a nicer house, or holidays, or for that matter designer suits and glasses but they chose instead to invest their money in their children’s education and taken from them all because the education secretary thinks that’s morally wrong. Some of them I’ve spoken to weren’t even Tories. They might be now.

And Bridget Phillipson could have weathered any such criticism if it had actually raised the money to pay for all the teachers she claimed it would – but it hasn’t. Numbers are down, and though she shook her head at this being raised, no amount of statistical jiggery-pokery posted later to prove otherwise passes real scrutiny. The online ‘community note’ squad quickly posting why the government numbers are bogus.

Kemi in many ways was doing – not to Starmer, but those that have moved him on – something she’s there to do: tell the truth. And yes, the truth hurts.

As for the man of that moment, Keir Starmer, it’s a bit off to talk about yourself having ‘good grace’, twice, when a stack of allied whisperers has been telling lobby journalists that he’s angry, hurt and feels betrayed, and that he doesn’t really rate Andy Burnham, the man of the moments to come.

I have a lot of criticisms of Boris Johnson but one thing he was absolutely right about, when the herd moves, it moves. The Makerfield sheep pen is filling fast, all at the blink of a lashed eye.

Big Al Carns, and disingenuous Darren Jones are not going to stop the ‘naughty boy’ from being the Labour Messiah, but if any of them think he’s going to produce miracles they’re mistaken. The challenges, and they are huge, are the same for Burnham as they were for Starmer.

Kemi Badenoch may have a sharp tongue sometimes, but I look around, sometimes not even at the Tory benches, and think, yes, you are uncomfortable because she’s just saying what you yourself have been thinking.

Will Andy Burnham forcing some of the architects of Labour’s current problems into lesser jobs – or no job at all -be considered spiteful for doing so?

I doubt it. For some it will be richly deserved.

Lord Bailey is a member of the London Assembly and a former candidate for Mayor of London.

Every month, millions of Londoners are forced to perform the same painful calculation. The wages come in, and before anything else can be considered, the rent or mortgage must be paid. Then come the bills, the food shop, the travel costs, the children’s needs, and the rising cost of just existing in London. It eats people up, and it stunts their development. Increasingly, it is getting more and more out of hand and putting a greater burden on people.

I know what housing insecurity feels like. I know what it is to be homeless and to worry about where you are going to sleep. That experience never leaves you. It teaches you that stable housing is not just about bricks and mortar. It is about dignity, safety, health, family, opportunity, and peace of mind. If a secure home can transform a person’s life, the absence of one can destroy it.

That is why I was proud in May to host my second annual London Housing Conference, bringing together people from across the housing sector to speak honestly about the crisis facing our city. We heard from construction firms, council leaders, Members of Parliament, landlords and housing associations. Their message was clear: London is being held back by high costs, insecure finance, excessive regulation, a weak economy and a planning system that too often makes building homes harder, not easier. And whilst this plays out, our Mayor is hitting send on glitzy press releases claiming that everything is fine and that, in fact, housing is coming along at record rates.

Sir Sadiq Khan has let London down. Under his tenure, housing starts have collapsed, and completions have failed to match the scale of the crisis. His own Affordable Housing Programme promised 35,000 homes, yet only around 2,600 have been completed, and fewer than half have even been started. The failure has become so serious that his own Government has had to place the programme under special measures.

Now, I would support any Mayor of London, from any party, who was serious about building the homes London needs. This issue is bigger than politics. It is about people’s lives. It is about whether London remains a city of opportunity or becomes a city where only the wealthy can put down roots.

But this Mayor has failed spectacularly. He could have done more to unlock brownfield land owned by the Mayoralty. He could have used housing funds more creatively to bring empty homes back into use. He could have worked with builders, boroughs and housing associations to make difficult sites viable. He could have listened when the sector warned that unrealistic demands would stop homes being built.

You cannot play politics with people’s homes. You cannot claim success while families are stuck on waiting lists, councils are buckling under temporary accommodation costs, and young Londoners are priced out of the city they grew up in.

In the coming months, I will bring together the findings of this year’s London Housing Conference and set out practical recommendations for the Mayor and the Government. Every statistic in London’s housing crisis represents a real person. A real family. A real struggle. Behind every failed target is a child without a permanent bedroom, a worker priced out of their community, or a parent wondering how they will make the rent next month.

London is the greatest city in the world. But it cannot remain so if ordinary Londoners cannot afford to live here. Our Mayor has failed them, and now the responsibility is on all of us to get London building again.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and party candidate Robert Kenyon before Kenyon casts his vote in the Makerfield by-election (PA Images/Alamy)

8 min read16 min

“No one calls him King of the North here,” said an optimistic Reform UK staffer a day before polls opened in the historic Makerfield by-election.

It was intended as a warning against Westminster assumptions that Andy Burnham’s celebrity status would carry him effortlessly to victory in the Greater Manchester seat. Yet when the votes were counted, Burnham had not merely won – he had crushed Reform by 20 percentage points.

For Nigel Farage’s party, the scale of the defeat was sobering. Pollsters have described the result as Reform’s worst electoral performance since the general election – particularly stark given that voters in Makerfield had elected Reform councillors only a month earlier.

Reform figures have sought to downplay its significance, however, arguing that the result was less an endorsement of Labour than a protest vote against Keir Starmer. Insiders insist that many voters who might otherwise have backed Reform lent their support to Burnham in the belief he represented the strongest vehicle for removing the Prime Minister.

When Reform selected Rob Kenyon, the party believed they had found an ideal candidate. A local plumber and former army reservist, he embodied the anti-establishment credentials considered central to the party’s appeal. Even now, party insiders maintain that their pick was important for the base, showing members that there is a route from the grassroots to Parliament.

Things quickly unravelled when old social media posts by Kenyon resurfaced, leading to accusations of sexism and misogyny. Among the comments highlighted was a suggestion that women rely on abortions so they can “shag anyone they want” and that the majority are for “vanity purposes”. On one account linked to Kenyon, he wrote: “I’m sexist, sorry but I am.”

During the Makerfield Question Time special, a female audience member encapsulated the electoral problem the revelations posed when she declared: “I’d rather have a career politician than a plumber who’s a sexist.”

Incredibly, Reform UK has said it was aware of Kenyon’s social media accounts before selecting him to stand against Andy Burnham in Makerfield.

Reform’s woman problem

A pre-election Survation poll found that Kenyon struggled to win the support of women in Makerfield: Burnham led Kenyon by 21 points among women (53 per cent to 32 per cent), whereas men preferred Kenyon to Burnham by 15 points.

Sophie Stowers, research manager and pollster at More In Common, noticed anti-Reform sentiment among women in focus groups leading up to the by-election. “The Kenyon comments cut through in a more negative way with women than they did with men,” she says.

“What we saw among quite a lot of women, particularly women in their mid-50s, was that they didn’t love Kenyon, they were quite put off by Farage and thought he was a bit arrogant.”

Some Reform figures privately acknowledge concerns about the party’s ability to connect with female voters, telling The House they feel a stronger message is needed to appeal to them. And in a Substack essay, former Reform spinner and current governing board member Gawain Towler admitted the party has a “woman problem”.

Reform insiders concede that the controversy gave Labour an opportunity to attack the party’s pledge to scrap the Equality Act, which critics argued would weaken key protections for women.

Suella Braverman spearheading the launch of the party’s proposed ‘Women and Motherhood Protection Act’ was a last-minute attempt to reassure female voters, committing to bring together “key protections currently scattered across different laws”, including equal pay, sex discrimination, employment rights, unfair dismissal and maternity leave.

According to a well-connected Reform source, Reform MP Sarah Pochin is particularly interested in appealing to more female voters. They admitted, however, that a recent video in which she suggested that England should win more World Cup matches to reduce domestic abuse did not do them any favours.

A Reform spokesperson counters this narrative, saying: “We are leading with women according to the latest More in Common polling.”

More in Common polling conducted days before the Makerfield by-election does indeed suggest Reform has broadened its appeal across the sexes. Among women, the party led Labour by eight points and the Conservatives by six. Among men, Reform’s advantage over Labour was narrower, at six points, though its lead over the Conservatives was nine points.

Trouble on the right flank

Reform concerns that Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain could siphon off enough support to deny them victory in Makerfield turned out to be somewhat overblown. Restore candidate Rebecca Shepherd finished third, with just under seven per cent of the vote – roughly in line with her party’s national polling position and not enough to change the result given Burnham’s overwhelming victory.

The performance nevertheless underscores a potential long-term threat to Reform. If Restore could replicate similar results across the country it would complicate Farage’s path to No 10 by fragmenting support on the political right. Restore figures have discussed ambitions to contest every seat at the next general election.

Restore’s decision to stand a woman in Makerfield undoubtedly helped them. Directly appealing to female voters in party campaign literature, Shepherd vowed to “give Makerfield women a voice”.

“Restore is what people wanted Reform to be”

In focus groups, Stowers identified that women actually saw Lowe as “quite a nice fella”. “They thought he was quite polite. They quite liked Restore’s canvassers,” she says.

“For those who were looking for an alternative on the right, they were quite taken with Restore. Restore has got this really radical, hyper-online, nativist reputation, but if they’re able to present themselves to some voters as an English countryside, polite, commonsense party for people who are a bit worried about Farage – who I think tend to skew to be women – maybe that is a problem for [Reform].”

Charlie Downes, campaigns director and spokesman for Restore Britain, tells The House the results in Makerfield show the party has established itself as a credible alternative: “There is a huge appetite for the agenda we are offering, and the more people learn about us, the more support we gain.”

Marlon West, a campaigner against child exploitation, is Restore’s candidate for the Greater Manchester mayoral election, where the party hopes to build on the momentum gained in Makerfield.

West is the father of Scarlett West, a victim of grooming gangs in Greater Manchester. The House understands that the focus of Restore’s mayoral campaign will draw on West’s “experiences of institutional failure”.

“We are confident that his story, his priorities and our unmatched digital campaigning machine will deliver a very good result for us – and, even if we don’t win, will be giving a platform to issues that are otherwise often ignored by the establishment media,” says Downes.

On a trip to Makerfield, The House saw many Restore activists wearing Trump-style shirts and caps brandishing the party name as they canvassed the streets. The party’s ground campaign relied on hundreds of activists travelling from all over the country – something that will prove more challenging if the party contests multiple seats or must cover more ground, as in the mayoral race.

“I’m not worried. It was an annoyance [in Makerfield] but there’s no way they’re ready,” says Towler of Restore. “The only thing [Rupert] can do right now is try and save his own seat.”

Rattled by Restore?

Farage hit out at Restore voters in a video on social media: “What do you want? We are the challenger party to the left in the country and I would urge you to think again.” This was taken by many as evidence that Reform is rattled by Lowe’s party.

Reports that Reform could sack Zia Yusuf, who is trying to pull the party closer to the right in response to the growth of Restore, were strongly denied by party spokespeople. A Reform spokesperson dismisses suggestions that the party has been rattled by Restore. “We will keep running our own race – we won’t change strategy for anyone,” they say. “They scored less than the BNP in 2010.”

Yet figures on both sides acknowledge that the contest exposes a fault line on the populist right. For Reform, the danger is that Restore offers a home to disillusioned supporters who increasingly see Farage as part of the political establishment he once railed against.

Reform’s controversial decision to welcome Tory defectors was plastered across Restore’s campaign literature, which blamed Braverman and Robert Jenrick for “betraying our borders” during their time in the Home Office.

“Restore is what people wanted Reform to be,” Andrew Bridgen, a former Tory MP who helped campaign for Lowe’s party in Makerfield, tells The House.

While Restore is still a fledgling movement, with little organisational infrastructure and no electoral breakthrough to its name, Makerfield is a reminder that Reform’s biggest challenge may not come from Labour or the Conservatives.

As Farage seeks to convince voters he is ready for government, he is also having to defend his party from a rival movement that accuses him of becoming precisely the sort of politician he once promised to replace.