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.

In the past week I've been reading 'The Bad Boys of Brexit: Tales of mischief, mayhem & guerrilla warfare in the EU referendum campaign' by Arron Banks, it's a fascinating book for so many reasons.

Firstly the book is something of a vanity project rushed out by Banks (and his ghostwriter Isabel Oakeshott) in the months following the referendum, but this means (albeit with a touch of bravado) it is contemporaneous , drawn from sources and doesn't have time to alter facts with through an historical looking glass. With that caveat in mind it has become a useful historical document.

Mr Banks was the founder of the influential Leave.EU campaign that sought (and failed to gain) designation as the official Leave campaign vehicle during the referendum, previously he had given a £1 million donation to UKIP after William Hague claimed not to know who he was. He's that sort of figure, some may claim petty, others proud and passionate.

Banks' book is now, a decade later, an historical document that clearly show an understanding of people and politics that far outstripped that of many political operatives and commentators. He understood a demographic group that was motivated to vote for Brexit, subequently for a Boris Johnson government, and every indictator points to the rise of Reform UK by 2029. With this in mind Banks' words were prescient.

For all of the tales of high-jinks in the book Mr Banks' epilgoue is wise: "Individuals like Trump and Farage have given a voice to people who feel ignored by the metropolitan class, with its group-think love of free markets and left-liberal values... We have only seen the beginning and we can only guess at how outsider poltics is going to end up revolutionising our country."

Mr Banks also astutely sums up Nigel Farage saying "For all the apparent bravura, he can be quite risk-averse."

For opponents of Reform UK, and I don't automatically count myself as one (although I am not a supporter either), this is worrying. It shows Mr Farage is politically considerate and astute, but it shows that there are those behind him who understand data, human emotion and take risks accordingly.

Mr Banks' book may yet become an important historic text.

Last month Reform UK adopted a new policy that would see indefinite leave to remain being scrapped for migrants. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the policy was that the party would seek to change the rules for those already holding ILR status in the UK, demanding that in future a new application for the status be made every five years, with much higher thresholds for earnings and a better standard of English required.

In essence the controversy was not that Reform UK were planning to change the rules (although that is controversial enough), but that they were announcing changing the goalposts for those already here.

The only reason I highlight this now is because I've been reading Owen Bennett's 2015 book "Following Farage", a light hearted look at the rise of Mr Farage's first vehicle, UKIP up to and slightly after the party topping the poll at the 2014 European elections.

That book includes a chapter on the 2014 Rochester and Strood by-election, brought about when Tory MP Mark Reckless crossed the floor and, many would say, honourably called a by-election to reaffirm the support of his electorate.

It's fair to say that Mr Reckless was not as charismatic or respected as his colleague Douglas Carswell who had followed a similar path months earlier and when questioned about the rights of European citizens to remain in the UK following a long hypothecated In / Out referendum suggested that after a period of time they would be expected to return to their home countries. Effectively retrospectively changing the rules.

At that time Mr Farage couldn't have been clearer, rejecting the position of Reckless, saying "whilst I think it is madness to have an open door (policy).. anybody (who) has legally come to this country in good faith has every right to be here."

In reality, what does this suggest?

Whilst everyone has a right to change their mind and change policy it is clear that in this respect Mr Farage's views have changed, what it also suggests is that the Overton window of what was politically acceptable a decade ago has also moved significantly in that time.

In 2014 the thought of changing the rules and repatriating people here legally was unacceptable in the mainstream of politics, in 2025 it isn't.

It's just another way how things have changed. 

Reading Jan-Werner Muller's short and accesible book 'What is Populism' I  have been become aware of a number of aspects of the theory / ideology that I have not properly considered before and how they have presented themselves in the United Kingdom.

Muller asserts that populists parties are almost always 'internally monolithic', the charismatic head either creates a new movement (Beppe Grillo in Italy or Nigel Farage with The Brexit Party or Reform UK in the UK), or effectively takes over an existing one (arguably Donald Trump in the USA or Nigel Farage with UKIP here). Crucially in each case we witness a leader prosecuting a form of internal authoritarianism holding ultimate control of membership with rank and file followers rather than internal party democracy as we usually see in traditional political parties.

In the UK this can be clearly seen both in Mr Farage's return to party leadership prior to the 2024 election without any form of leadership contest, or his effective dispatching of internal representatives since, Rupert Lowe in what appears to be an effective challenge on policy and leadership, or James McMurdock for unacceptable behaviour.

Crucially, the power has rested with Mr Farage. It is a challenge for the future of a growing party and a concern for what happens once in power.

Interestingly, the other concept I find interesting in Muller's book (I'm still only a third of the way through) is that when in power there is no such thing as legitimate opposition. 

Of course, Reform UK have not (yet) been in government in the UK but is it fair to assume that if office is attained they will make an argument that they continue to represent the people even if the media reports that the wider polity disagrees? 

In the United States we have witnessed in recent months the cancellation of media outlets opposed to President Trump and widespread assertions that those cancelled do not represent 'real people'. If the polls are to be believed and in four years we have a Reform UK government , is it likely that such opposition here in Britain will be painted as illegitimate?

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.