Personal Blogs

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?

Ask the man on the Clapham omnibus what he thinks about politicians and more often than not his answer will at some point include a variation of 'they are all liars'

YouGov data from 2024, an election year, showed that of all professions only those who run pressure groups were more distrusted than Members of Parliament (although the response is a little different members of the public are asked about their own MP). In that survey just 18% of respondents had some degree of trust in MPs, only 1% of respondents would qualify that as 'a great deal of trust'.

Compare that to 66% overall trust in academics, 73% teachers, 82% scientists and 83% family doctors and you can see the perilous state that democracy is in.

So, when Labour were elected to power last year a narrative of untrustworthiness was never likely to be far away. It wasn't helped when some dancing on the head of pin allowed the party to qualify the increase to employer's contributions for National Insurance as not being 'a tax on working people'.

It didn't help with hastily announced changes to winter fuel allowance and personal independence payment policy, and their botched u-turns. It didn't even help as Government brought forward its timetable for adding VAT onto independent school fees with the one it had arguably implied that it would introduce prior to the election.

One significant contributing factor to the Government's unprecedentedly poor favourability ratings could be argued to be its lack of trustworthiness.

It is therefore potentially fatal that despite regular questioning at party conference this week that Labour appear to be equivocating on their most prominent pre-election pledge not to introduce new taxes on 'working people'. Prior to the election they qualified those taxes as income tax, national insurance and VAT.

When asked on the radio this morning whether she stands by her statement last year not to come back for more borrowing or more tax rises Pippa Crerar, Political Editor at The Guardian, posts Chancellor Rachel Reeves as responding "I think everyone can see the world has changed in the last year and we are not immune to that."

Elsewhere on yesterday's morning media round the Prime Minister was challenged several times on the VAT aspect of his pre-election pledge only to equivocate.

The Chancellor is right, the world has changed in the past year, but the party's promises at that time didn't make that caveat, they were clear.

Any change now only contributes to the impression of dishonesty. They knew things had the potential to change, but they still made they promise.

It is, perhaps, the hoariest of all political cliches but President George H W Bush felt the distaste on the American people after going back on his 1988 promise "Read my lips, no new taxes", albeit other factors had a material effect on the result of the subsequent 1992 election too.

But that example should highlight the impact that misleading the public can have on the future of a politician.

Labour should be very, very careful indeed about u-turning on their most prominent pre-election pledge. At a time when they are languishing in the polls they may find they have not hit rock bottom yet.

For years, both on social media and in the real world, whenever two people have had a conversaton about the fall of the high street you can guarantee that at some point one party would say to the other 'it's all just charity shops now'.

'It's all just charity shops' has never been uttered in a positive sense, but rather that the high street has fallen. All of the known retail chains are long since gone and all that we are left with is donated clothes and, maybe, new items linked with the charity's primary cause.

It's been a phrase used because, along with Turkish barbers and vape shops, it is commonly believed the fate of the high street just can't fall any lower.

But, and it may have passed you by, the high street can fall lower and it is already doing so as charity shops now start to close.

The disabled people's charity Scope is now well into the process of closing 77 of its 148 shops. Earlier this year the head of the Charity Retail Association said across the top four charity retailers (the British Heart Foundation, Barnardo’s, Cancer Research UK and Oxfam) that challenges in maintain a retail portfolio abound.

There is a perfect storm in the sector. Bills are increasing, whether that is rent, energy or employer's national insurance and donations are reducing as donors sell their clothes on Vinted and other platforms, simply put what is coming in through the door isn't as good as it used to be.

Anyone can see, and rightly so, that charity shops are not run on the same budgets as high end department stores but they do have to break even, especially as charities are effectively underwriting the risk.

The CRA chief Robin Osterley outlined that charity shops generate around £1.4 billion turnover annually with around a third of that going to their parent charities, the challenge is that like for like store income is down marginally at the minute. Clearly stores vary, as do charity operating models, but it's not hard to see in that perfect storm the charitable income dwindling away completely and the charities themselves, rightly, are starting to plan accordingly. Of course a charity should never contemplate subsidising a retail operation, that just isn't their purpose.

What can be done about it?

From our perspective potentially nothing.

As individuals we have little agency in changing national insurance levels or the price of energy bills. We're also human, and let's face it, for most of us donating stuff to the charity shop was always about getting rid of stuff the we didn't want with an implied halo of doing good, but now in these tough times we can make a few quid on Vinted, well that is different too.

And, of course, the same goes for shopping in a charity shop. Who wants to spend hours finding a hidden gem amongst the duds in a charity shop when you can filter and search in seconds on an app?

So, it's very likely that in the next few years when talking about the high street we won't be making those asides about 'it's all just charity shops now' because they will be gone too.

Maybe it's time to stop talking about regenerating the high street, and start talking about what should replace them?

I wrote on this blog yesterday that populism can be defined as 'an illiberal democratic response to liberal democracy'.

In other words a key feature of populism is that it takes a view of democracy that the collective view of the majority can ride roughshod over the rights of the minority.

Liberal democracy believes that defending the rights of any minority is of paramount importance because at some stage the majority always ceases to be and the inevitable next step in those cases is for the governing to move seamlessly to totalitarianism. A process repeated many times throughout the twentieth century.

The reason I return to this concept today is that reading Kamala Harris' new book '107 Days', an account of her time as the Democrat 'top of the ticket' in last year's US election, she provides a perfect example of the populist notion of the majority riding roughshod over the rights of the minority.

In her book Harris considers the rights of transgender people in America. She notes that in 2024 less than ten transgender people played on women's college sports team of a gender that they were not born into. She states that just two federal prisoners had received court-ordered gender-affirmation surgery, a 'sex change operation' in less inclusive language.

In the same year 350 transgender people were murdered in America, including 15 children.

Harris notes the electoral success of President Trump's campaign advertisement ran thousands of times during sports programming during the final days of the campaign: "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you."

In some accounts that ad has been identified as a significant factor in the final outcome of the election.

In that very short summary we can see clearly the actions that accompany a populist rhetoric.

There is little doubt that the majority of people have concerns around the trans debate and the rules governing issues such as gender-affirmation surgery, self-identification and the protection of women only spaces, I shall be honest and admit that I do myself.

But in adopting a populist approach that sides with the commonly held view, the rhetoric and subsequent actions clearly seek to undermine the rights of the minority, a protection that liberal democracies should hold dear.

I don't use this blog to seek to persuade on one issue or another, but I do try and use it to inform.

The populism that we see increasing in popularity in opinion polls is one of 'an illiberal democratic response to liberal democracy'. It may be that, collectively, we are fine with that but we should understand the implications both to minorities now and, potentially, being mindful that one day we may be in the minority ourselves.

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.

There is very little that I agree with Jeremy Corbyn on. All those years ago his capture of the heart of Labour was the principle reason I left the party.

So what I say now should in no way be construed as support for him or his ideology.

Mr Corbyn has a following. It is a following that I find a little strange but it is also one that is principled and not insignificant in size. On that basis only it is good to see him launching his new political party, whatever it is called and despite all of the internecine battles.

There is every chance that in the wider population at least 10% of voters will cast their ballot for Mr Corbyn's platform, and it's absolutely certain that at the next election they will not get the number of parliamentary seats commensurate with that level of support.

Our First Past the Post system of elections is inequitible beyond belief.

It was a system that was set up to provide constituency level representation in a two party system, whether those two parties were Whigs and Tories, Tories and Liberals or Tories and Labour.

But we no longer live in a two party world.

By any measure, and not factoring in parties calling for national independence, we now have at least a six party system: Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrat, Green, Reform UK and Mr Corbyn's vehicle.

Our parliament is now elected using a system where just over 30% of the popular vote (and much less of the overall electorate) can deliver a landslide. It did for Labour in 2024 and will, potentially, do so for Reform UK in 2029 on an even smaller share.

Not only is that not fair, it is the path to unrest. If our political system is based on the consent of the defeated it cannot be defensible that the defeated equate to three quarters of the population.

The answer is a parliamentary system that is fairer in distributing seats based upon vote share. The answer must be one of proportional representation.

If Mr Corbyn's party earns 10% of the popular vote it is not unreasonable for him or his voters to expect comparable representation in our legislature.

If this Labour government wants to deliver one lasting constitutional innovation then at its conference next week it should announce a move to PR. They could proudly be the last government to be elected on a 30% vote share, and would undoubtedly continue to be a major force under any new model of representation.

I'm dropping my youngest son of at university this week so, as you may expect, there have been lots of 'advice' chats about the does and don'ts of university life.

Clearly there has been all the usual stuff: DO treat study like a professional job, work regular hours; Enjoy the social life but DON'T party too hard; DO keep fit, the 'Freshers 15' is a very real thing.

You know the routine?

But there's also the more esoteric advice, and this is just one example, but one that comes from the bottom of my heart (and years of experience), and it's not just one for politics students:

DO join a mainstream political party / politics society.

The reasons are varied, and most of them worthwhile:

• At its best politics is about reasoned argument, it helps you develop your ideas and decide where you want to go in life.
• Politics improves your employability skills, whether they are improving in public speaking or the project management of campaigning.
• Politics helps to improve your personal network, the people you encounter early on keep popping up throughout your professional and personal life. So, it's always a good idea to be nice to them.
• But, most of all, the significant majority of people involved in politics are worth knowing. They care about the issues affecting the world around them, which means they have already thought about them deeply, and they have chosen to positively make the world a better place by getting involved.

I'm really not bothered which party my son decides to join, we accept these days more than ever that personal views change based on experience and party affiliation isn't a lifelong commitment, and each party has its strengths (and weaknesses).

But people involved in politics are the ones who step up, they want to make a difference, they are among the connections and friends that you want to develop.

Came across this post on X earlier and thought how interesting it is.

- The selective state school element may, of course, be affected by the age profile of respondents (many parts of the country have not had selective state school generaton for decades,
- of course, the independent school (private school) sample may be small and, therefore, somewhat unreliable,
- but it does appear to support The Guardian's reporting (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/25/class-age-education-dividing-lines-uk-politics-electoral-reform) that education is now a bigger indicator of voting intention than social class.

For full transparency my day job centres around public affairs working with independent schools, so this probably grabs my interest more than it does for most!

It is, perhaps, the understatement of the year to say that immigration is one of the most talked about issues within the political sphere at the moment.

Let me be clear, I don’t for one second think immigration is THE most important issue. Not by a long way. Housing, the social care crisis, defence, pensions, affordability of healthcare, the threats and opportunities of AI and taxation all come well above immigration objectively, but I would be the first to accept that immigration influences all of them to some degree.

Similarly immigration is more than just illegal immigration. It must take into account skilled workers, their families, high net worth migrants and asylum seekers. All fall under the spectrum of immigration and all should be treated in their own ways.

But illegal immigration is an important issue, with small boat arrivals being the most visible, if not necessarily the greatest in number (it is relatively easy to count small boat arrivals, but not those arriving or overstaying using other irregular methods).

It is particularly noteworthy that the significant majority of those arriving in the UK on small boats originate from countries with authoritarian regimes or ravaged by war and this will obviously, and rightly, impact the categorisation of migrants arriving in this way with many having justifiable asylum claims to be processed.

 

We are a country that has always been rightly proud of our role in supporting refugees and we should continue to be.

But, that isn’t the point of this post.

I want to reflect on that category of migrants that some, including the populist right, want you to believe all small boat arrivals fall into. I’m writing about illegal, economic migrants (which, to be fair, some asylum seekers may fall into the category too).

I have long questioned what is the best way to deal with this category of migrant and have come to the conclusion, which I am more than willing to be argued out of, that we are dealing with this category in entirely the wrong manner.

In order to arrive at this conclusion we need to look at the facts:

• If a young man, for this category is overwhelmingly young men, has left their home nation seeking a better life in Britain they have taken a hugely dangerous route. They have travelled through numerous countries and, often, across at least two seas in inflatable dinghies. They have faced a significant risk of death on multiple occasions and hostile authorities all for the promise of a better life. At a time when only 1 in 10 young Britons say they would be prepared to fight for their country, whether you agree with them or not, the bravery and desire of those ‘economic migrants’ in their determination to reach Britain really cannot be questioned.

• The populist social media commentariat would have you believe that economic migrants are only coming to the UK for benefits. The truth, however, is that whilst there is no direct comparison provision for asylum seekers is not overwhelmingly better in Britain than other comparable western European nations. It is unlikely that benefits is a key driver, much more likely is the overwhelming use of a global known and accepted language, England’s historical tolerance of incomers (and in no small part a holdover of empire).

But, if it is true that a significant number of small boat migrants are arriving here for economic purposes then my genuine question is why don’t we let them work?

Instead of placing migrants in hotel accommodation for an indeterminate time would it be better to provide hostel accommodation for a short term, fixed, period? A national insurance number with fixed term limitations on what can be claimed? And, perhaps, the offer of a ticket back to their home country if things don’t work out?

If these ‘economic migrants’ really are here in search of a better life, isn’t it more English to give them that chance?

And if they are working legally, paying tax and national insurance, they would become net contributors. At a time when the tax base needs increasing then they would contribute to doing so without drawing on the sizeable budgets currently needed to manage small boat arrivals.

And if it were true, as some would have you believe, that they are here for an ‘easy’ life (instead of fleeing from hostile governments to save their lives) then the sink or swim necessity of work would soon ensure the departure of those who really don’t want the hard graft.

Let us be very honest. If it is just about economic migration (which I don’t believe to be the case) then Britain could do an awful lot worse than having eloquent migrants such as this man interviewed at an Epping hotel in the workforce.

I don’t think that I have ever knowingly agreed with a Green Party policy in my life but a couple of days ago I saw the following post on X (as part of the party’s wider policy towards refugees):

 

The party has a serious point, whether they are approaching it from the same perspective as me I do not know, but public spending needs reducing, productivity needs improving, as a country we must continue to welcome immigrants who can make a productive contribution, and to deter those who wish to rely on the state.

What’s more it is an approach that has been adopted in other countries, admittedly with varying degrees of success.

I may be wrong but would suggest that there is a serious debate to be had based not on fear but rationality.

It is easy to arrive at a populist approach, but is it the right one? It’s time for a serious debate on whether irregular economic migrants should be given the right to work.

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.

Early in the second series of The West Wing writer Aaron Sorkin decides to have his Democrat President Bartlett employ a Republican lawyer, Ainsley Hayes, as a plot device to show that whilst political opponents can disagree they nevertheless are principled, decent people (if only politics was undertaken in that spirit in the present day and in the real world).

When asked by one of Bartlett’s Democrat political appointees why the Republican has chosen to work with and for her political opponents Hayes says that she feels being called to serve is her ‘duty’.

The concept of duty is a constant theme in Sorkin’s universe. Elsewhere when Hayes (again) is in a scene discussing which Gilbert & Sullivan operetta is about duty she notes “They’re all about duty”.

 

Duty, the dictionary definition being “a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility.” is a concept we talk too little of these days. The idea that in return for a social security safety net, education and health services we have obligations too has become an alien concept to countless younger people. It appears that for many tax and public services have become a transactional relationship rather than a concept aligned to moral obligation.

Earlier this year YouGov polling of Generation Z (young people aged 18-27) for The Times revealed just 11% of young Britains would be prepared to fight for their country in the event of war. (Albeit as history has shown that low number is probably soft when the country is actually facing the threat of combat.)

But it is undoubtedly the case that the concept of standing for a greater national purpose, you may call it ‘duty’, is one on the wain amongst young people in the face of individual rights.

The evidence on going to war is somewhat hypothetical. It is easy to say you are not prepared to do something when you are not facing an ultimatum, but the economic impact of individualism is a very real one.

Research undertaken by the Centre for Social Justice (and reported on in The Times) has today revealed the potential impact of persistent school absence. The think tank reports that almost 180,000 pupils are set to leave school and fall into unemployment or long-term economic inactivity as a result of persistent absence, at a lifetime cost to the taxpayer of £14 billion.

Although days lost have taken a slight dip since the height of the pandemic they continue to far outstrip the position prior to 2020 with more than 6 out of every 100 pupils being off on a typical school day. More than 2% of pupils were missing at least half of school sessions throughout the autumn 2024 term.

There is, of course, a well-documented link between school attendance and qualifications that correlates with employability, lifetime potential income, health and housing outcomes. Missing school persistently has a long term impact on all of these with their cost ultimately being paid by the taxpayer. This is where duty comes in.

We know that young people have had a tough time over the past few years. There is a real mental health crisis experienced by thousands of children (and exacerbated by the world of smart phones and social media).

But we also know from a quick trawl of that same social media, particularly TikTok, of the parents who demand to take their children out of school on holiday, or complain that they are punished for seemingly minor infractions of the rules.

Far too often it is about their rights and not their responsibilities.

In a representative democracy we expect our government to provide when we need assistance, to keep us secure, and deliver high quality universal services. But in having those expectations we have our obligations too. That is the social contract.

Gilbert & Sullivan, and to be fair the whole of Victorian society, understood and taught the importance of duty.

Perhaps the greatest failing of our digital age, and I appreciate I may be coming across as a grumpy old man, is that we are in danger of forgetting it.