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. 

Back on the 15th May Councillor Dan Harrison became Reform UK's first council leader, saying of his council, Leicestershire County Council "We're now looking at the cost, the efficiency, well then have money for front line (services) but we'll also be able to cut council tax."

Mr Harrison was so proud of his statement that his local Reform UK branch shared the story, it's still sat on their social page now.

A constant message of Reform UK's election campaign was that council tax cuts could be secured through eradicating wastefulness and getting rid of environmental initiatives.

Obviously, anyone who understands the decade of financial challenges that councils have been under and huge demographic changes that are still taking place knows that such an assertion is balderdash, but dissatisfaction with the political establishment ran so deep that at the last county council elections voters returned Reform UK in unprecedented numbers.

However, things are starting to unravel quickly.

The Financial Times are now reporting that Reform UK's flagship council, Kent County Council, are planning on increasing council tax next year with one cabinet member claiming "Everyone thought we'd come in and there were going to the these huge costs we could cut away but there just aren't."

No one, who has an understanding of local government finance thinks that though.

Reform UK should have known better, and they are smart enough to have known better. One can only conclude that they did know better but deliberately chose to tell another tale.

No one with an ounce of understanding expects council tax to be frozen in Leicestershire next year either, the pressures and the budgets do not allow it.

But as long as voters are willing to listen to policies without a shred of evidence backing them up, then politicians will continue to offer them.

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?

I was recently having an exchange on social media with a newly elected Reform UK county councillor where I commented on his assertion that his party was 'centre right' with the observation that as a party they don't have an aligned position on any traditional left / right spectrum but rather that they pick and choose policies based on a populist approach. It can be argued that the party has some fairly right wing views when it comes to immigration whilst its stance on the public ownership of British Steel falls far to the left of the Government, for example.

The councillor in question replied to me as follows: "I am centre right that is a fact ,a popular policy like lowering tax will always be popular , removing illegals that cost us billions will always be popular etc etc"

In that one sentence he conflated populism with the notion of being popular. It isn't an unusual mistake to make and I don't criticise him for it, it's not reasonable to expect councillors to be experts in political theory.

But it is important to note that populism isn't about being popular, although some of the policies of a populist party may well be, it's about how the party looks at the world.

Cas Mudde describes populism as being a set of ideas, that may well have a 'host' ideology attached to them that sets the 'good' people against the 'bad' elite. It assumes that the people hold a common set of values and is moral ideology that paints the 'people' as good and the elite, or establishment, or whatever you want to call them as corrupt.

Perhaps most importantly Mudde describes populism as 'an illiberal democratic response to liberal democracy'.

The real issue is that in a liberal democracy we believe in the concept of popular sovereignty and majority rule, but we also believe in minority rights, the rule of law and separation of powers. In that sense we can argue that democracy has progressed from a relatively simplistic electoral version to a much more complex monitory model that takes into account supranational bodies and institutions, courts and treaties.

The essence of populism is that through a strengthened executive it is free to undermine the judiciary, the media, the rule of law and the rights of minorities (if those minorities don't accord with the homogenous views or characteristics of 'the people').

So, going back to my discussion with the unnamed councillor, I don't expect him to understand any strict definition of populism. What I do expect him to recognise is that populism readily infringes on the rights of minorities, and to ask himself if he is happy with that?

And, just as importantly, to remind himself often that you never know when you may become a minority yourself.

Earlier today Reform UK Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, Dame Andrea Jenkyns, took part in a press conference for her party under the banner 'Women for Reform'. As you might expect it wasn't the most intellectually stimulating of press confereres - I don't think I'm Reform's target audience - but I did raise my head when Dame Andrea said the following:

"We have lived through decades when institutions, police and some politicians have turned a blind eye to the grooming of our children, and we've seen a rise in domestic abuse. Ladies and gentlemen there's no wonder that both men and women are turning to Reform, they need hope that this 1984 Orwellian nightmare, where the thought police are monitoring our every social media post yet letting off paedophiles, want this to end."

The reason that Dame Andrea's comment piqued my interest is this week, for the very first time, I have been reading Orwell's outstanding work of political commentary / dystopian science fiction in preparation for this year's Open University module.

It piqued my attention because like a great many others I have talked in the past about 'Big Brother', 'Orwellian' or 'thought-police', without ever reading the book. They are words and phrases that have worked their way into our vocabulary without the need for understanding them, or appreciating Orwell's warning.

So, as Dame Andrea was talking one thought kept popping into my head. I wonder if she has ever actually read 1984? My guess is that she hasn't.

So, having read 1984 only this week, and having loved it (save for having the least sympathetic protaganist ever) let me say this.

As far as I know our government, for all its faults, is not in the business of changing history.

Our government is one of law and order - arguably too many laws and too many orders - but isn't that the opposite to the party portrayed in 1984, where there was only 1 crime? That of thought?

But let me agree with Dame Andrea, and I'm sure having read 1984 herself she will see the irony, that it is no surprise that men and women are turning to Reform, because I'm sure Chapter III of Goldstein's manual will be at the forefront of her mind:

"They (the High) are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High."

Could there be a better description of the strategy being undertaken by Reform UK at the minute? Could we be living through an Orwellian nightmare?

In his Times essay this week Fraser Nelson writes "Journalism is anchored to facts: no one pays to read junk. And almost no one pays for social media. It’s a device selling people’s attention to advertisers, with algorithms designed to engage (or enrage), to keep you hooked. Yet most Brits now use social media as a news source."

It strikes me that in what many may argue is becoming a post truth world this is the most disconcerting and Orwellian aspect of our modern political sphere.

Many, including a great many of Reform UK's target audience, are not going to the news for impactis facts to consider, but rather are going to the news to reaffirm and reinforce their existing beliefs.

Once you realise that then you realise you are not too far away from Orwell's most disturbing prophecy "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future"

When Reform UK (or, for that matter, any party) are able to shape facts as they choose to then they are not too far away from shaping our past and our future into a truly dystopian Orwellian nightmare.

In invoking Orwell Dame Andrea should ensure she is conisdering his whole vision, I'm not at all certain any Reform UK politician would be rushing to use the imagery of Orwellian nightmares if they were to do so.

Back in the days when I was a Labour Party County Councillor I was a big advocate for helping armed services veterans leaving Her Majesty’s forces. (Such strident support was relatively rare in Labour in those days, it got far worse under Jeremy Corbyn - but that’s another story.)

In my role I petitioned my County Council to adopt a guaranteed interview scheme for veterans applying for jobs providing they met all essential criteria of the job description. It was a scheme designed to ensure forces leavers were not disadvantaged in recruitment as many of the skills they develop do not have transferrable qualifications into the civilian sector (or certainly did not then have). Skills were often learnt instead of accredited.

It was a scheme specifically designed to remove disadvantage, and promote equality, to a thoroughly deserving group within our community.

In the end my County Council did not adopt a guaranteed interview scheme, instead we became co-signatories to the Armed Forces Covenant.

I remain incredibly proud that we adopted the covenant, it’s objectives are incredibly clear.

But I’m also very clear that in that the Armed Forces Covenant, rightly so, is a version of EDI.

EDI, or Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, is the bête noire of Reform UK councillors up and down England. Reform UK councils, taking office at an opportune time, ordered the removal of flags during LGBTQ+ Pride Month, and notably the Deputy Leader of Leicestershire County Council describes EDI as ‘a con’.

The principles of EDI talk about equality and disadvantage. No lesser institution than Oxford University states clearly “Equality is about ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities, and no-one is treated differently or discriminated against because of their personal characteristics.”

It is exactly the same sentiment as expressed in the Armed Forces Covenant.

Ensuring people are not disadvantaged in life. The Armed Forces Covenant talks about those who serve or have served, generally EDI talks about protected characteristics. But the principle is the same.

An advanced society tries to make access to services, including recruitment, equitable to everyone, especially those groups who find it difficult to break through. EDI is in principle really no more complex than that.

The first, and most important, point of course is understanding that not everyone is able to access public services in the same way. EDI is about making sure ‘different’ isn’t ‘excluded’, just as the Armed Forces Covenant is.

 

What Reform UK must decide is why the dislike EDI?

Is it because they are against the concept of removing disadvantage, because it is too costly to the taxpayer?

To me that is a disagreeable position but it is, at least, intellectually coherent, but, in which case, logically, the now Reform UK led Leicestershire County Council should remove support for the Armed Forces Covenant.

Or, is it because, the most visible beneficiaries of EDI as they see it are easily targetted groups (and non-target voters)?

I think we probably know the answer.

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.