Investigating Restore Britain

[Maia]

7 percent can get a party A LOT of power under a proportional representation system which is certainly a double-edged sword. In a country like England you could LITERALLY end up with Sharia so it's probably best to keep the status quo.

PR is something that I've changed my opinion about more than once. The main problem in the UK, I think, is that we don't have a tradition of parties working together.

[accelafine]

It does depend on the kind of proportional representation you choose. STV is the best and fairest. MMP carries a high risk of loons getting power, despite only getting a small percentage of the vote.

[Maia]

It does depend on the kind of proportional representation you choose. STV is the best and fairest. MMP carries a high risk of loons getting power, despite only getting a small percentage of the vote.

Single transferable vote could also be used if parties were eliminated altogether, which is something I've often thought might be a good idea. Each individual MP would therefore be elected on their own merits, without being beholden to a party structure. It would make for a pretty chaotic parliament, though, with nothing ever getting done.

[phyllo]

Ranked Choice Voting fixes the problems with first-past-the-post without going to proportional rep.

[MikeNovack]

Ranked Choice Voting fixes the problems with first-past-the-post without going to proportional rep.

RCV is better than FPTP, but it is not a panacea. It has the serious problem of possibly eliminaitng a Condorcet candidate (if therechange is one) and can give strange/unacceptable results as voter preferences change over a series of elections (result COULD move in the opposite direction).

You need to see the problems before considering possible fixes/modifications.. One of the easier ways to see issues is to compare with the (old) Borda Count method. Examine when/under what circumstances could RCV give a different result than the closely related Borda Count. WHEN these two differ, which result do you find more reasonable?

Proportional representation depends very much on the value of the threshold. But yes, it gives disproportional say to a single issue faction willing to give up all say on other issues. BUT -- if we consider the democratic process as a social negotiation, that is a natural consequence of being single issue versus caring about many issues. It affects all forms, not just PR.

[phyllo]

Rats, I was hoping for a panacea.

[MikeNovack]

Rats, I was hoping for a panacea.

No method is going to solve all the problems (see works by Arrow et al.)

The MAIN problem with RCV is proponents do not recognize it has any flaws, claim it will do more than it can deliver (for example, it does NOT do away with need for "strategic voting" but just changes the circumstances when necessary). I am NOT suggesting we don't replace FPTP with RCV, just not do so blindly. Because Borda Count is such a close relative of RCV (essentially same ballot, counted differently) and a naive first guess would not see how could give a different result INSTRUCTIVE to examine how/when does Borda Count give a different result << and when they differ, which result is to be preferred and why >>

You COULD treat this as saying "replace FPTP with Borda Count" (instead of with RCV)" It's easy to explain to people how Borda works, and there is just a single count of the ballots.

[phyllo]

I think the chances of getting any election reform is close to zero.

So this is just academic.

[Maia]

I've continued asking a number of questions, but have had very little direct feedback. There has been a great deal of discussion, but mostly among other members. And just now, I've had a post declined, in which I was asking if a merger between Restore and Reform would be possible, if Farage decided to step down. I can't really understand why this was declined, as it seems like a perfectly reasonable question, to me. In short, I didn't find them very welcoming.

[Gary Childress]

I've continued asking a number of questions, but have had very little direct feedback. There has been a great deal of discussion, but mostly among other members. And just now, I've had a post declined, in which I was asking if a merger between Restore and Reform would be possible, if Farage decided to step down. I can't really understand why this was declined, as it seems like a perfectly reasonable question, to me. In short, I didn't find them very welcoming.

Sounds like they might be more nationalistic and probably think of the days of Empire as a golden age for Britain. They might also not be keen on people with disabilities. They might classify as "ableists", meaning they don't believe in special help for the disabled because they think it elevates the disabled above ordinary fully abled people. You might want to ask them those questions before proceeding further.

[phyllo]

I've continued asking a number of questions, but have had very little direct feedback. There has been a great deal of discussion, but mostly among other members. And just now, I've had a post declined, in which I was asking if a merger between Restore and Reform would be possible, if Farage decided to step down. I can't really understand why this was declined, as it seems like a perfectly reasonable question, to me. In short, I didn't find them very welcoming.

Sounds like they might be more nationalistic and probably think of the days of Empire as a golden age for Britain. They might also not be keen on people with disabilities. They might classify as "ableists", meaning they don't believe in special help for the disabled because they think it elevates the disabled above ordinary fully abled people. You might want to ask them those questions before proceeding further.

Or they might be interested in a few specific issues which fill their entire field of view.

So, maybe the practical problems of people with disabilities is just not something they think about. Maybe they are not interested in looking at a merger with Reform.

[Gary Childress]

I've continued asking a number of questions, but have had very little direct feedback. There has been a great deal of discussion, but mostly among other members. And just now, I've had a post declined, in which I was asking if a merger between Restore and Reform would be possible, if Farage decided to step down. I can't really understand why this was declined, as it seems like a perfectly reasonable question, to me. In short, I didn't find them very welcoming.

Sounds like they might be more nationalistic and probably think of the days of Empire as a golden age for Britain. They might also not be keen on people with disabilities. They might classify as "ableists", meaning they don't believe in special help for the disabled because they think it elevates the disabled above ordinary fully abled people. You might want to ask them those questions before proceeding further.

Or they might be interested in a few specific issues which fill their entire field of view.

So, maybe the practical problems of people with disabilities is just not something they think about. Maybe they are not interested in looking at a merger with Reform.

Well, Google AI summed it up as follows. (However, AI is notorious for being partisan.)

Question to AI: "what is the platform of the british restore party?"

Restore Britain is a far-right UK political party and former pressure group formally launched as a party in February 2026 by Rupert Lowe, an independent MP who split from Reform UK. The party positions itself to the right of Reform UK, focusing on hardline immigration restrictions, cultural nationalism, and the implementation of Christian-conservative values.

[FlashDangerpants]

Sounds like they might be more nationalistic and probably think of the days of Empire as a golden age for Britain. They might also not be keen on people with disabilities. They might classify as "ableists", meaning they don't believe in special help for the disabled because they think it elevates the disabled above ordinary fully abled people. You might want to ask them those questions before proceeding further.

Or they might be interested in a few specific issues which fill their entire field of view.

So, maybe the practical problems of people with disabilities is just not something they think about. Maybe they are not interested in looking at a merger with Reform.

Well, Google AI summed it up as follows. (However, AI is notorious for being partisan.)

Question to AI: "what is the platform of the british restore party?"

Restore Britain is a far-right UK political party and former pressure group formally launched as a party in February 2026 by Rupert Lowe, an independent MP who split from Reform UK. The party positions itself to the right of Reform UK, focusing on hardline immigration restrictions, cultural nationalism, and the implementation of Christian-conservative values.

That's true in as far as it goes, but it misses the real scam. The actual purpose is tax cuts and all that trickle down economics bullshit, the other stuff is just the current playbook for how you whip up an army of idiots to vote for you.

All the nationalism is pie in the sky. Much too expensive, illegal and just plain silly to actually happen. You can't cut taxes to "promote growth" which is the actual thing that Rupert thingyface wants and also assemble a brand new ICE styled immigration police force unless you cut spending massively elsewhere - by for instance privatising the NHS.

And you simply can't grow GDP at all by shrinking the workforce. Expelling huge numbers of migrants is a means to shrink the workforce, in fact shrinking it so that white people have less job competition is the point and purpose of the policy. That's fine of course, I am sure you can persuade people that shrinking GDP is a worthwhile outcome of shrinking the ... population of a certain skin tone or religion.

.... but you can't persuade the bond market that it is a good thing that your debts are still as big as ever, even though your tax base has shrunk and your ability to meet your debt obligations has shrunk with it. So all new borrowing becomes prohibitively expensive. Which is why the ICE-UK GESTAPO would need to be paid for by massive cuts to hospitals and road building projects rather than tapping debt markets.

This is all extremely obvious. Rupert knows his plans for Mass Deportation is impossible, he doesn't care as long as he gets his tax cuts and a bit of time at the top of the pyramid so he can get his beak wet.

[FlashDangerpants]

That inflow of political hacks is however dislodging all of the crazy people who formed the outsider class of political neophyte that has been elected to local councils in England to represent Reform. This problematic collection of utter idiots and psychos was already a laughingstock with absurd levels of resignation and expulsion. But now they are cut off from career advancement as well because renegade Tories are replacing all the middle management of that party. So it's time for them to drift a little more to the right, and they are joining up with Rupert in (Restore).

In keeping with that, we now have the spectacle of one Kieran Mishchuk. He was a Reform UK councillor (the Farage shitshow that is filling up with tories and thus cutting off routes of advancement for rank and file members) but he jumped ship to go to the more extreme right wing Restore UK that Maia is promoting. Sorry, "investigating".

What did mister Mishchuk get up to upon arrival? Well retweeted something which I cannot post here so I will merely describe some of the troubling details. It shows a grid of US, Japanese and British politicians arranged from - and I quote - "Sandn*gger Left", to "Left" to "Indian", then "Jew Right" and finally "Based Right".

For the UK row, the "Sandn*gger Left" representative is Zack Polanski, ironically a jew from the actual left of UK politics. His American counterpart is Bernie Sanders.

For the "Jew Right", we find mister Mishchuk's former boss Farage, and his American counterpart is One Donald J Trump.

The "Indian" column is just pictures of politicians who are of ethnic Indian descent. That seems enough to make them unwelcome for some reason...

For the non Jew, "Based Right", we get good old Rupert Lowe, and I have no idea who the Yank is, but I have little doubt he's a wrongun'

Here's the details. https://searchlightmagazine.com/2026/03 ... cist-post/

This is just what they are like. They try to be sneaky little racists, but they are so wildly unprofessional that they constantly give the game away.

[accelafine]

The overuse of the term 'far right' is just as infuriating and moronic as Americans and their 'left' bullsh*t. Both terms are now completely meaningless because of this. Imagine how stupid you would need to be to think that every single human condition and problem (not to mention 'person') can be lumped into just two baskets, with partisan imbeciles calling everyone they don't like either 'left' or 'far right', depending on which one of the two tribes they rigidly align themselves with.
Imagine criticising a vulnerable woman who lives in a city where she is a minority and where a deeply misogynistic ideology dominates, simply for voicing concerns about that ideology.
Imagine being a man and telling women that there is something wrong with them when they are critical and fearful of an ideology that oppresses women and treats them even worse than it treats dogs. Men have nothing to lose in an islamic country. They live the life of riley, which is why Iran isn't going to suddenly become 'free' of radical islam just because America wags its self-righteous, resource-stealing finger at it. Why would it? Men don't give a shit when women are hanged for being raped. They are all good, as long as they aren't openly gay.