Personal Blogs

There are numerous definitions and debates about whether populism is an ideology or a discourse, a form of rhetoric or tool that is used to present a set of ideas. In all of that debate, however, there is one constant, populism is "a way of perceiving the political world that sets a morally pure and fully unified - but... ultimately fictional - people against elites who are deemed corrupt or in some other way morally inferior" (Muller 2016)

Populists and populism always seeks to set 'the people' against 'the elite'.

If you want to see a clear example of populism in action then there is no need to look no further than Nigel Farage's performative act yesterday (and subsequent posting on X) of watching Prime Minister's Questions from the public gallery instead in the chamber of the House of Commons.

Mr Farage seeks to set himself as being attacked, week in, week out, from the despatch box with no right of reply, something that is undoubtedly procedurally true.

The Labour government now class Reform UK as their main political threat and are choosing to attack Mr Farage and his party almost constantly from the front bench, and it is true within the chamber there is no way for Reform's MP to rebut the constant barrage.

So, Mr Farage has decided to take the populist route of saying that he is part of the people who also do not have a voice. In doing so his actions seek to set him against the elite establishment.

It may be a protest that is somewhat peurile, the rules of parliament have been developed over centuries and shouldn't be changed for one MP (especially one who believes that parliament should be sovereign - a constant argument of the Leave campaign), but the actions of Government highlight the point of populists everywhere.

When even a prominent voice of the people can be attacked continually by an elite and not given the right to respond, Mr Farage will argue there is something fundamentally wrong with our system.

Even if the establishment aren't prepared to listen to his argument the people will.

The Government are clearly being played by Mr Farage proving the point that he continues to make. He is both a populist and a very smart political operator.

Today The Times reports in detail on Sir Keir Starmer's plans for the introduction of Digital ID cards.

I had completely forgotten about this until a memory popped up on another social media platform, but 8 years ago today - when I was writing a weekly politics for a national Catholic newspaper - I questioned what the then Labour opposition's plans were for faith based schools?

The current Government is, of course, not led by Jeremy Corbyn but by a much more pragmatic, left of centre administration, but there are still many Labour members ideologically opposed to educational choice whether that is about state funded faith schools or independent schools.

The reason I'm posting this memory is not just to highlight the precedent of ideological opposition to educational choice on the left of the political spectrum but to remind that manifestos - for all parties - are as much about what they do not say as what they do.

In 2017 Labour did not say what they planned for faith based schools and, some would say, fortunately, we never got to find out.

In 2024 the Labour manifesto said it would not raise taxes on working people, notably income tax, national insurance and VAT but omitted to say thy would increase rates on employer's contributions for NI.

It's likely to be four years until the next General Election but in some respects that is not a long time, and this week opposition parties have been laying out some of their plans when it comes to welfare and so it is pertinent to raise the point again now.

With the final parliamentary rounds of the Conservative leadership election getting under way this week it was interesting to listen to Beth Rigby's Electoral Dysfunction podcast reflecting on last week's Tory party conference.

Former Labour MP Harriet Harman suggested that this interminably long recruitment process had become something of a beauty contest and that it was important that the remaining candidates go away to think about what it is they stand for.

Of course, Ms Harman is right, ideology is important for any candidate. Where do they stand on the economy? On immigration? Where are they on the political spectrum?

But ideology isn't the beginning and end.

How you look and how you communicate is just as important when it comes to being entrusted by the public with political power. You may have the best set of principles in the world (or to counter that, truely hateful ones) but you will never gain office if you do not communicate them in a way that resonates with a sizeable portion of the electorate.

Take this year's general election as an example. Few people would understand the intricacies of Sir Keir Starmer's personal ideology but in the years that preceded him entering office - and the short campaign itself - he communicated an approach of dignity and service (albeit, arguably, that approach may have crumbled fairly quickly).

There is much that can be said in another post about governments losing power, rather than oppositions winning it, but broadly in July enough of the electorate saw Sir Keir as a decent, competent pair of hands.

It can be argued that this year's Labour manifesto was the thinnest in history in terms of policy platform, it wasn't an epic ideological tome - what you may expect from a party that has been out of power for a decade and a half - but rather a document that in four or five years time cannot be held by Labour's opponents as some sort of 'sausage to fortune' scenario. (See what I did there?)

The Times last week reported on comments made by Baroness Morgan of Cotes that the next Labour leader must appeal to people from "Cheltenham High Street to Loughborough Market". She said when it comes to finding the best leadership candidate she has a "Sunday lunch test... If the new leader turned up in your house for Sunday lunch could you ask them to open a bottle of wine and serve the guest and chat to people?"

I've always followed a similar rule when voting for leadership candidates- and yes, I do have a vote in the Conservative contest. Would I be happy to have a pint at the pub with them?

Invariably most successful Prime Ministers have always passed those tests whether it was Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair or David Cameron. Your backgrounds may differ but you wouldn't be stuck for conversation - it's the chat not the alcohol that is important, you see? 

Even those most divisive of politicians Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson or Dennis Skinner pass the test. You may disagree with them, but they have a depth more than just ideology.

So my advice for the next Conservative leader (or any politician) is yes, understand your ideology but remember it counts for nothing if your potential voters cannot empathise with you.

In the real world of politics what you look like and what you sound like are ust as important as your views on Adam Smith.