Makerfield, Reform and Restore — and what the result means moving forward
Parliamentary by-elections do not follow the general election playbook, and this one less than most. They are, as often as not, an exercise in voting the incumbent out rather than a positive vote for what people actually want. Makerfield was a sharp example, with one telling twist: the incumbent in voters’ minds was not a party but an individual, the Prime Minister himself. In that context, Andy Burnham was seen by many as the surest route to forcing change at the top. That is a very particular set of motivations, and not one that travels neatly to a general election.
It is why I would read little into Reform’s second place. A party’s standing is better judged across the wider picture than through the distorting lens of a single by-election. Reform UK has led the national polls for over a year. And only a few months earlier, in May’s local elections, it won all but one of the seats up for election on Wigan Council, the authority that covers Makerfield, sweeping every ward within the constituency itself on around half the vote. A party that dominant, on this very ground, weeks earlier, is not one whose prospects can be measured by a by-election fought on Labour’s terms against a departing Prime Minister.
Look closer at the result and, within this contest, the dominant story is in fact one of consolidation, not fragmentation. Labour and Reform took nearly nine in ten votes between them, squeezing every other party to the margins. It would be unwise to read a settled national trend into a single seat, but the shape of this contest, narrowing towards two with the traditional centre all but squeezed out, is a pattern worth tracking across the contests to come.
There is, however, one development that complicates the picture and is worth keeping an eye on: the emergence of Restore Britain. Contesting its first parliamentary by-election, it took 6.8% of the vote, a modest but real result. The distinction matters: had it fallen below 5%, it would have lost its deposit and could fairly have been written off as insignificant. It did not. Clearing that bar, narrow as it is, is the difference between a fringe footnote and a party that has registered, however faintly, as a force. It may yet follow the long line of new parties thrown up by the anti-establishment mood that faded quickly into obscurity, but it would be premature to dismiss it. Having helped build a party from the ground up, I would argue the real test is rarely the mood. It is organisation, the unglamorous work that separates the parties that endure from those that vanish, and whether Restore is doing that groundwork is the question worth watching — and the early signs of an organisation taking shape on the ground suggest it is a question worth taking seriously. Looking further ahead, the reason it could matter is arithmetic: under first past the post, a divided right need not win a single seat to change who does. A challenger taking even a few per cent in the right places can decide a clutch of marginals, and with them, in a tight Parliament, who governs.
So what does it mean moving forward? For now, Makerfield points to consolidation: a Reform that is strengthening its position, and a contest narrowing towards two. The open question is whether that holds, or whether the challenge emerging beside it grows into something that splits the right and redraws the map. The prudent course for any organisation is to plan for both: engage seriously with Reform as it consolidates, while keeping a close watch on whether the field divides.
As ever in politics, the headline is the easy part. The story that shapes the next election is the quieter one, playing out underneath.
