An editorial in the Sunday Times on 15 December began: ‘Boris Johnson’s thumping UK election victory this week will send shivers down the spines of moderate political leaders facing the growing threat of populism in their countries.’
The Sunday Times assumes, as the left generally does, that populism comprises wild-eyed, knuckle-dragging, proto-fascists who want to assault people belonging to minority groups and flash Nazi salutes in public demonstrations.
In reality, populism is defined as a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
The Democratic Party in America still sees people who voted for Donald Trump three years ago in this sort of way. They still fail to recognise that, for many, a vote for Trump was a vote against those very big-city, Democratic elites that people loathe. Those voters are the people whom the high priestess of elite condescension, Hillary Clinton, referred to as the ‘basket of deplorables’.
There have been moves to the centre and to the far right all over Europe. The largest right- wing party is Hungary’s Fidesz, with 49% voter support. The other 18 countries have right or far right parties represented by between 3,7% and 26%. Not exactly storming majorities.
There is entirely justified concern about anti-Semitism growing amongst the far right, though of course anti-Semitism is also a prevalent phenomenon amongst the left.
The reasons behind the wave of populism include concerns about globalisation, immigration, a dilution of national identity and, in Europe, bureaucratic rule by the European Union.
Douglas Murray states in his book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, that ordinary people want their governments to tackle issues such as those mentioned, but their governments keep tackling issues they, the politicians, want to tackle or those that they think people should want tackled. Murray records the growing rift between the governed and those who purport to govern for them.
So what were the parties in the British election offering the voters?
Liam Halligan (’Nightmare on Downing Street: it could really happen’, The Spectator, 7 December) notes that, had Labour won, Britain’s status as the world’s fifth largest economy would have been at risk because the real power in Labour would have been Labour Chancellor John McDonnell, not Jeremy Corbyn, its leader. McDonnell’s hobbies are listed in Who’s Who as gardening, reading and ‘generally fermenting (sic) the overthrow of capitalism’.
Corbyn’s radical programme would have taken a knife to any budgetary prudence – ‘the fiscal equivalent of a slasher movie’, said Halligan.
Day-to-day spending would have increased to £83 billion, all funded by extra taxation. £55 billion for capital spending would have been financed by more borrowing and £400 billion for a ‘National Transformation Fund’, which was not costed prior to the election.
The cherry on the socialist top would be the nationalising of key industries: the big six energy firms, the electricity grid, the water industry, Royal Mail, railways and the broadband arm of British Telecoms.
Labour claims its tax increases wouldn’t affect ‘ordinary’ people; they’d come from the City, other companies and people earning over £80,000. The Institute of Fiscal Studies said this wasn’t possible: the Labour Party would increase taxation on average incomes and Britain would have ‘just about the most punitive corporate tax system in the world’.
The kicker would’ve been McDonnell’s plan to seize 10% of the shares in every big British company. Expropriation, anyone? Britain’s status as a place for world-class investment, and related jobs, would vanish, confirming Corbyn’s nickname as ‘magic grandpa’.
Halligan states that radicalism has never worked well for Labour. The 1983 hard-left manifesto of Michael Foot became what has been referred to as ‘the longest suicide note in history’. However, as we’ve seen, Halligan’s fears that the most left-wing government in Britain’s history might govern ended up being unfounded.
The Conservatives, by contrast, don’t intend nationalising anything. As corporate tax gradually fell under the Conservatives, from 28% to 19%, the resulting extra activity boosted annual revenue from £43 billion to £55 billion.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson, on the other hand, promised the ‘biggest ever cash boost’ for the National Health Service (NHS). He prioritised the NHS over tax cuts for business.
He also promised to spend huge amounts on capital projects and ensure that more building takes place outside London and the South East.
The Conservatives also promised to increase the minimum wage to £10.50 an hour –the highest rate in the world, and higher than Labour’s promise. These are attempts to deal with the issue of regional inequality.
Otherwise, Britons are free to choose how they make their living and how they lead their lives.
Oh, and Boris has promised to complete Brexit. Labour promised to do something altogether more iffy. It would have meant renegotiating an exit deal within three months, promising to keep the UK much more closely aligned with the EU on trade, the environment and workers’ rights. Once negotiated, it would be ‘put to a legally binding referendum alongside the option of remaining in the EU’.
The Liberal Democrats promised to revoke Brexit without a referendum, but would’ve still supported a second Brexit referendum with an option of remain. The result? The Lib Dems lost one seat – the leader, Jo Swinson’s – and gained none. The people have spoken regarding the Lib Dem’s undemocratic approach to Brexit and the wishy-washiness of Labour.
The irony now is that Labour’s new electoral base is young, metropolitan and Remainer, while the Conservatives took Labour’s working-class base in the areas ‘left behind’. The Conservatives won with a massive majority.
The Conservative party in Britain isn’t rightwing, fascist or even just right of centre. It is for a free-market economy that has adopted a social programme to uplift the less well-off. It is not remotely right-wing nor destined to strike fear into the hearts of right-thinking voters.
The Sunday Times editorial goes on to say: ‘The wholesale conversion of the lower-middle and working class in Western societies, from traditional trade union-inspired left-leaning politics to radical populism, represents a grave threat to established democracies around the world. No leader is safe now. Nationalism is rampant, and with it xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiment and economic protectionism’.
So the ‘people’ whom the Sunday Times would have supported under a socialist government, the ‘trade union-inspired’ former Labour supporters, now represent a grave threat to democracy.
The Sunday Times ends by saying ‘…populists will take courage from the Johnson victory, and will be fishing around for the simple slogans that seem to be the sure ticket to high office nowadays.’ The soft bigotry of low expectations.
If you like what you have just read, become a Friend of the IRR if you aren’t already one by SMSing your name to 32823 or clicking here. Each SMS costs R1.’ Terms & Conditions Apply.