There’s a lot I take on board here, but I disagree with the main thrust of the argument. Simply being competent is not the answer. In the Dagenham example, what is the competent solution? There isn’t one. Our first task is to earn the right to be heard, to convince working people that we are on their side. Competence can then be telling.
"Our core message should be that the policies of populist parties are stupid and won’t work." Agree, but we can't just leave it to politicians to fight this battle. More us need to be prepared to call out the ignorance and stupidity underpinning populist policies.
Campaigning for County Council elections in May has begun but not in the local press (gone) or broadcast media (blink and you'll miss the coverage). Reform is instead pushing its message through local social media channels:- a combination of the usual stuff on immigration; council tax and spending proposals that don't add up, even before taking account of crises in social care, SEND and highways maintenence; and weirder stuff like switching off all the speed cameras in the county.
Neither Labour nor Conservatives appear to be engaging with this. Perhaps they have other plans? I don't know. But what does seem likely is that turnout will be low and that Reform will come out on top.
Thatcher also said that all Scotland needed to do to gain its independence was to elect a majority of SNP MPs but when that has happened it has been ignored
Do think the mainstream establishment have got Net Zero completely wrong and the UK with Ireland are the worst of the lot which is why Britain &Ireland has the highest electricity prices in Europe.The Sunak govt belatedly started to do a small u-turn on oil & gas and the longer labour take to do a credible u-turn the more Reform will be able to cement their support base
Good read Peter but I can't help feeling that the more commentators try to analyze the snake oil of populism and it's rubbishness, the wider of the mark they end up. Not least because of their own biases that they struggle to recognize. As you've pointed out most recent skirmishes and significant issues (at least in terms of airtime) have been moral and you say "This tells us that populists are delivering a damning instrumental verdict: Our democracy is not working for them. The great, historic cause of democracy – one citizen, one vote – has given way to a series of skirmishes which are fought using the language of morality but which are essentially instrumental." But here's an associated question - at what point do minority rights outweigh majority wishes and rights? And why? In the final analysis, shouldn't the essential desire to recognize and protect minority rights (essential to a liberal democracy and worth fighting for) still give way to majority wishes and rights? What happens if this isn't the case in a 'democracy' based on a popular understanding on 'one citizen, one vote'? Is recognizing this growing majority resentment the root of populism or a failure of the instruments of democracy? And, in fact, also a failure of it's overall morality of one citizen, one vote'? How many recent skirmishes can in fact be traced back to this underlying issue and question? What if mainstream parties were to tackle this?
Here lies your issue: “Mainstream parties are in danger of fighting the wrong battle.” Are these bodies listening to and offering policies which align with people’s views and desires? In many ways Trump’s election in the US was quite traditional. There were major concerns about the economy, crime and the state of the government (look at opinion polling and Google Trends). It’s somewhat similar in the U.K., where the economy, the NHS and immigration are the top issues. The actual ‘mainstream’ in SW1, including the media and political parties, is quite different to the ‘mainstream’ in the rest of the U.K.
There’s a lot I take on board here, but I disagree with the main thrust of the argument. Simply being competent is not the answer. In the Dagenham example, what is the competent solution? There isn’t one. Our first task is to earn the right to be heard, to convince working people that we are on their side. Competence can then be telling.
I agree, being competent is not enough. But there is an even more fundamental problem. Promoting freedom and understanding used to be good economics. Is it still though? https://open.substack.com/pub/horatio438311/p/the-world-on-acid
"Our core message should be that the policies of populist parties are stupid and won’t work." Agree, but we can't just leave it to politicians to fight this battle. More us need to be prepared to call out the ignorance and stupidity underpinning populist policies.
Campaigning for County Council elections in May has begun but not in the local press (gone) or broadcast media (blink and you'll miss the coverage). Reform is instead pushing its message through local social media channels:- a combination of the usual stuff on immigration; council tax and spending proposals that don't add up, even before taking account of crises in social care, SEND and highways maintenence; and weirder stuff like switching off all the speed cameras in the county.
Neither Labour nor Conservatives appear to be engaging with this. Perhaps they have other plans? I don't know. But what does seem likely is that turnout will be low and that Reform will come out on top.
Thatcher also said that all Scotland needed to do to gain its independence was to elect a majority of SNP MPs but when that has happened it has been ignored
Do think the mainstream establishment have got Net Zero completely wrong and the UK with Ireland are the worst of the lot which is why Britain &Ireland has the highest electricity prices in Europe.The Sunak govt belatedly started to do a small u-turn on oil & gas and the longer labour take to do a credible u-turn the more Reform will be able to cement their support base
Good read Peter but I can't help feeling that the more commentators try to analyze the snake oil of populism and it's rubbishness, the wider of the mark they end up. Not least because of their own biases that they struggle to recognize. As you've pointed out most recent skirmishes and significant issues (at least in terms of airtime) have been moral and you say "This tells us that populists are delivering a damning instrumental verdict: Our democracy is not working for them. The great, historic cause of democracy – one citizen, one vote – has given way to a series of skirmishes which are fought using the language of morality but which are essentially instrumental." But here's an associated question - at what point do minority rights outweigh majority wishes and rights? And why? In the final analysis, shouldn't the essential desire to recognize and protect minority rights (essential to a liberal democracy and worth fighting for) still give way to majority wishes and rights? What happens if this isn't the case in a 'democracy' based on a popular understanding on 'one citizen, one vote'? Is recognizing this growing majority resentment the root of populism or a failure of the instruments of democracy? And, in fact, also a failure of it's overall morality of one citizen, one vote'? How many recent skirmishes can in fact be traced back to this underlying issue and question? What if mainstream parties were to tackle this?
Here lies your issue: “Mainstream parties are in danger of fighting the wrong battle.” Are these bodies listening to and offering policies which align with people’s views and desires? In many ways Trump’s election in the US was quite traditional. There were major concerns about the economy, crime and the state of the government (look at opinion polling and Google Trends). It’s somewhat similar in the U.K., where the economy, the NHS and immigration are the top issues. The actual ‘mainstream’ in SW1, including the media and political parties, is quite different to the ‘mainstream’ in the rest of the U.K.